Revised Geneva Score (PE) Calculator

inputs

Age ≥65 years
1 point

Previous DVT or PE
3 points

Surgery or fracture within 1 month
2 points

Active malignancy (or cured <1 year)
2 points

Unilateral lower-limb pain
3 points

Haemoptysis
2 points

Heart rate 75–94 bpm
3 points

Heart rate ≥95 bpm
5 points

Pain on deep palpation of lower limb and unilateral oedema
4 points

✓ when to use

Use as an alternative to Wells PE when a fully objective PE pretest probability assessment is preferred. Particularly useful in research settings or when standardisation across assessors is important. All items are objectively measurable — no clinical gestalt required.

✗ when not to use

Same limitations as Wells PE: not validated in pregnancy, hospitalised patients, or children. Slightly less widely adopted than Wells PE in most international guidelines, though both are endorsed by the ESC. Heart rate criteria cannot be applied if rate-controlling drugs have been administered.

clinical pearls

The key advantage over Wells PE is complete objectivity — there is no 'PE most likely diagnosis' criterion (which accounts for 3 points in Wells and has significant inter-rater variability). Every item in the revised Geneva score is objectively measurable.
Heart rate is split into two tiers (75–94 and ≥95) with different point values (3 and 5). This is more granular than Wells PE, which uses a single >100 bpm criterion.
A simplified version exists (all items scored 0 or 1) which performs comparably and is easier to calculate at the bedside.
In practice, most UK pathways use the Wells two-level model (PE likely >4, PE unlikely ≤4) rather than revised Geneva. Know which score your local pathway uses.
The revised Geneva score and Wells PE can give discordant results in the same patient. If in doubt, use the score specified in your institutional pathway and document your reasoning.

✓ when to use

✗ when not to use

clinical pearls

The key advantage over Wells PE is complete objectivity — there is no 'PE most likely diagnosis' criterion (which accounts for 3 points in Wells and has significant inter-rater variability). Every item in the revised Geneva score is objectively measurable.
Heart rate is split into two tiers (75–94 and ≥95) with different point values (3 and 5). This is more granular than Wells PE, which uses a single >100 bpm criterion.
A simplified version exists (all items scored 0 or 1) which performs comparably and is easier to calculate at the bedside.
In practice, most UK pathways use the Wells two-level model (PE likely >4, PE unlikely ≤4) rather than revised Geneva. Know which score your local pathway uses.
The revised Geneva score and Wells PE can give discordant results in the same patient. If in doubt, use the score specified in your institutional pathway and document your reasoning.

Revised Geneva Score (PE)

inputs

✓ when to use

✗ when not to use

clinical pearls

related tools