• Jun-Hua Shen, Hong-Lin Chen, Jian-Rong Chen, Jia-Li Xing, Peng Gu, and Bao-Feng Zhu.
• Department of Emergency, Nantong First People's Hospital, North Haierxiang Road 6#, Nantong, 226001, Jiangsu, People's Republic of China.
• J. Thromb. Thrombolysis. 2016 Apr 1; 41 (3): 482-92.

AbstractThe Wells score and the revised Geneva score are two most commonly used clinical rules for excluding pulmonary embolism (PE). In this study, we aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of these two rules; we also compared the diagnostic accuracy between them. We searched PubMed and Web of science up to April 2015. Studies assessed Wells score and revised Geneva score for diagnosis suspected PE were included. The summary area under the curve (AUC) and the 95 % confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Eleven studies were included in this meta-analysis. For Wells score, the sensitivity ranged from 63.8 to 79.3 %, and the specificity ranged from 48.8 to 90.0 %. The overall weighted AUC was 0.778 (95 % CI 0.740-0.818; Z = 9.88, P < 0.001). For revised Geneva score, the sensitivity ranged from 55.3 to 73.6 %. The overall weighted AUC was 0.693 (95 % CI 0.653-0.736; Z = 11.96, P < 0.001). 95 % CIs of two AUCs were not overlapped, which indicated Wells score was more accurate than revised Geneva score for predicting PE in suspected patients. Meta-regression showed diagnostic accuracy of these two rules was not related with PE prevalence. Sensitivity analysis by only included prospective studies showed the results were robust. Our results showed the Wells score was more effective than the revised Geneva score in discriminate PE in suspected patients.

21 keywords...

hide…