Skip to content

Pulmonary embolism scores compared

This comparison describes how the methods differ; it does not declare one universally better — the choice depends on the patient and clinical context.

Wells PERevised GenevaPERC rule
MethodWells PE (Wells 2000)Revised Geneva (Le Gal 2006)PERC (Kline 2004)
InputsClinical signs and symptoms of DVT، PE is the most likely diagnosis، Heart rate over 100، Immobilisation ≥ 3 days or surgery in the past 4 weeks، Previous DVT or PE، Haemoptysis، Malignancy (treatment within 6 months or palliative)Age، Previous DVT or PE، Surgery or lower-limb fracture within 1 month، Active malignancy (or cured within 1 year)، Unilateral lower-limb pain، Haemoptysis، Heart rate، Pain on deep-vein palpation and unilateral oedemaAge 50 or over، Heart rate 100 or more، SaO₂ under 95% on room air، Unilateral leg swelling، Haemoptysis، Surgery or trauma within 4 weeks (needing general anaesthesia)، Previous DVT or PE، Hormone use (oral contraceptives, HRT, oestrogen)
PopulationAdults with suspected pulmonary embolism.Adults with suspected PE.Adults in the emergency department whose clinician judges PE probability to be low (under 15%).
Key limitationsIncludes a subjective item ('PE most likely').Use with D-dimer and imaging according to a validated pathway.Not validated in populations with high PE prevalence.
ReferenceWells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger M, et al. Derivation of a simple clinical model to categorize patients probability of pulmonary embolism: increasing the models utility with the SimpliRED D-dimer (2000)Le Gal G, Righini M, Roy PM, et al. Prediction of pulmonary embolism in the emergency department: the revised Geneva score (2006)Kline JA, Mitchell AM, Kabrhel C, Richman PB, Courtney DM. Clinical criteria to prevent unnecessary diagnostic testing in emergency department patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (2004)
Version1.0.01.0.01.0.0