Emergency Medicine
Revised Geneva Score (PE)
Pre-test probability of PE (objective).
Education and reference only. Not a substitute for clinical judgement, local policy or product labelling. Always verify before clinical use. Values are calculated in your browser and never stored.
Background
The revised Geneva score estimates the pre-test probability of pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients presenting with suspected PE. It was designed to use entirely objective variables — age, previous venous thromboembolism, recent surgery or fracture, active malignancy, unilateral lower-limb pain, haemoptysis, heart rate and clinical signs of deep-vein thrombosis — avoiding any subjective clinical gestalt. This makes it reproducible between clinicians, in contrast to the Wells score, which includes a subjective judgement of whether PE is the most likely diagnosis. The total guides whether a patient is low, intermediate or high probability.
Interpreting the result
A higher score indicates a greater pre-test probability of PE. Using the standard three-level scheme, low probability is roughly 0–3, intermediate 4–10 and high 11 or more. In low or intermediate probability, a negative D-dimer can reasonably exclude PE without imaging, whereas high probability usually warrants imaging (typically CT pulmonary angiography) regardless of D-dimer. The score directs the diagnostic pathway rather than confirming or excluding PE on its own.
Worked example
A 70-year-old with a previous DVT, unilateral leg pain and a heart rate of 80/min: Age > 65 (1) + previous DVT/PE (3) + unilateral lower-limb pain (3) + heart rate 75–94 (3) = 10. This is intermediate probability, so a D-dimer is appropriate, with imaging if it is positive.
Pearls / pitfalls
- In low or intermediate probability, combine the score with a D-dimer; a negative high-sensitivity D-dimer can safely exclude PE without imaging.
- A high-probability score should generally proceed to imaging without relying on D-dimer to exclude PE.
- Consider age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds in older patients to reduce unnecessary imaging.
- Like all probability scores, it informs the diagnostic strategy but does not confirm or rule out PE by itself.
Evidence & validation
Derived and validated by Le Gal and colleagues to provide an objective alternative to the Wells score, and supported by European Society of Cardiology guidance, which recognises validated clinical probability scores such as Wells and Geneva for assessing suspected PE.
Frequently asked questions
How does the revised Geneva score differ from the Wells score?
The revised Geneva score uses only objective variables, making it more reproducible between clinicians. The Wells score includes a subjective element — the judgement that PE is the most likely diagnosis — which the Geneva score deliberately avoids.
What do I do with a low or intermediate score?
In low or intermediate probability, a D-dimer is the next step. A negative high-sensitivity D-dimer can safely exclude PE without imaging, whereas a positive result usually leads to CT pulmonary angiography.
Should I still order a D-dimer if the score is high?
Generally no — a high pre-test probability means a negative D-dimer is not reliable enough to exclude PE, so most patients proceed directly to imaging such as CT pulmonary angiography.
Can the score confirm a pulmonary embolism?
No. It only estimates the probability of PE before testing. Definitive diagnosis requires appropriate investigation, typically D-dimer in lower-probability patients and imaging where indicated.
References
- 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.
- Konstantinides SV, et al. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism. Eur Heart J. 2020;41(4):543–603.
About the creator
Le Gal G et al.
Related calculators
Need a calculator we don't have — or a custom tool?
We build evidence-led clinical calculators, dashboards and reference tools for teams.