Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 338

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Simplification of the Revised Geneva Score for Assessing Clinical Probability of Pulmonary Embolism

Open access
Klok, Frederikus A., Mos, Inge C. M., Nijkeuter, Mathilde, Righini, Marc, Perrier, Arnaud, Le Gal, Grégoire, Huisman, Menno V.·2008·Archives of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The revised Geneva score is a fully standardized clinical decision rule (CDR) in the diagnostic workup of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE). The variables of the decision rule have different weights, which could lead to miscalculations in an acute setting. We have validated a simplified version of the revised Geneva score. METHODS: Data from 1049 patients from 2 large prospective diagnostic trials that included patients with suspected PE were used and combined to validate the simplified revised Geneva score. We constructed the simplified CDR by attributing 1 point to each item of the original CDR and compared the diagnostic accuracy of the 2 versions by a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. We also assessed the clinical utility of the simplified CDR by evaluating the safety of ruling out PE on the basis of the combination of either a low-intermediate clinical probability (using a 3-level scheme) or a "PE unlikely" assessment (using a dichotomized rule) with a normal result on a highly sensitive D-dimer test. RESULTS: The complete study population had an overall prevalence of venous thromboembolism of 23%. The diagnostic accuracy between the 2 CDRs did not differ (area under the curve for the revised Geneva score was 0.75 [95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.78] vs 0.74 [0.70-0.77] for the simplified revised Geneva score). During 3 months of follow-up, no patient with a combination of either a low (0%; 95% confidence interval, 0.0%-1.7%) or intermediate (0%; 0.0%-2.8%) clinical probability, or a "PE unlikely" assessment (0%; 0.0%-1.2%) with the simplified score and a normal result of a D-dimer test was diagnosed as having venous thromboembolism. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that simplification of the revised Geneva score does not lead to a decrease in diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility, which should be confirmed in a prospective study.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archinte.168.19.2131

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 338

Metadata

Authors
Klok, F. A., Mos, I. C. M., Nijkeuter, M., Righini, M., Perrier, A., Le Gal, G., & Huisman, M. V.
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Published
2008-10-27
Volume
168
Issue
19
Pages
2131
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2097924121
Cited by
338
References
0
FWCI
6.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Simplification of the Revised Geneva Score for Assessing Clinical Probability of Pulmonary Embolism. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinte.168.19.2131
The paper
Klok, F. A., Mos, I. C. M., Nijkeuter, M., Righini, M., Perrier, A., Le Gal, G., & Huisman, M. V. (2008). Simplification of the Revised Geneva Score for Assessing Clinical Probability of Pulmonary Embolism. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.168.19.2131

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.