Revised Geneva Score for PE

Methodology

Revised Geneva (Le Gal 2006)

Age > 65 1; previous VTE 3; surgery/fracture 2; malignancy 2; unilateral leg pain 3; haemoptysis 2; HR 75–94 3, ≥ 95 5; pain on palpation + oedema 4

A fully objective score, endorsed by ESC 2019 alongside Wells.

Who it is for

Adults with suspected PE.

Version

1.0.0

How this calculator works

Where the formula comes from

• Le Gal and colleagues (2006) built the revised Geneva score from clinical variables only, independent of the physician's overall judgement, using patients from emergency departments of three European university hospitals, and validated it externally.^[1]

The inputs

• Points: age over 65 1, previous DVT or PE 3, surgery or fracture within 1 month 2, active cancer 2, unilateral leg pain 3, haemoptysis 2, heart rate 75–94 3 or 95 or more 5, and pain on deep-vein palpation with unilateral oedema 4.^[1]
• In the validation set PE was present in 8% of the low (0–3), 28% of the intermediate (4–10) and 74% of the high (11 or more) probability groups.^[1]

Versions and alternatives

• A simplified version giving 1 point per item had similar accuracy in 1,049 patients (area under the curve 0.74 vs 0.75).^[2]

Where accuracy falls (published evidence)

• Interobserver agreement for the score items was not studied in the original paper.^[1]

What guidelines say

• The 2019 ESC guideline lists the revised Geneva score, alongside the Wells rule, as a validated way to assess clinical probability, to be combined with D-dimer testing and imaging.^[3]

Sources

1. Le Gal G, Righini M, Roy PM, et al. Prediction of pulmonary embolism in the emergency department: the revised Geneva score. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(3):165–171. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-144-3-200602070-00004
2. Klok FA, Mos IC, Nijkeuter M, et al. Simplification of the revised Geneva score for assessing clinical probability of pulmonary embolism. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(19):2131–2136. doi:10.1001/archinte.168.19.2131
3. Konstantinides SV, Meyer G, Becattini C, et al. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism developed in collaboration with the European Respiratory Society (ERS). Eur Heart J. 2020;41(4):543–603. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz405

Compiled from the published sources above. Every statement was agreed independently by three AI research tools (Claude, ChatGPT, DeepSeek) and its source verified in PubMed or Crossref by the Hakeemly editorial team. Not reviewed by a doctor unless stated. Agreed on 2026-10-11

Worked example: how to calculate revised Geneva

An illustration with sample values, worked out with the same method the tool above uses.

Limitations

• Use with D-dimer and imaging according to a validated pathway.

References

1. Le Gal G, Righini M, Roy PM, et al. Prediction of pulmonary embolism in the emergency department: the revised Geneva score. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(3):165–171. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-144-3-200602070-00004
2. Konstantinides SV, Meyer G, Becattini C, et al. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism. Eur Heart J. 2020;41(4):543–603. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz405