Skip to tool information and report a problem
← Clinical Rx
Bedside clinical calculators

ScoreRx

Select a validated bedside score, enter the available clinical findings, and review the result with its interpretation and source guidance. Designed for fast verification at the point of care.

10 bedside calculators Source-linked guidance Verification support
Optional case search
Not sure which score fits?
Describe the clinical scenario and ScoreRx will suggest calculators from this page.
Use de-identified case details only. Do not enter names, MRNs, or dates of birth. Search text is sent to a third-party AI service.

Choose a calculator

Tap a score to switch calculators

Serum Anion Gap
AG = Na⁺ − (Cl⁻ + HCO₃⁻). The "normal" range is analyzer-dependent — older flame-photometry/colorimetric methods reported ~8–16 mEq/L, but modern ion-selective-electrode (ISE) analyzers, now standard in most US labs, typically read lower (~3–11 mEq/L). Use your own lab's stated reference range where available; this tool reports the number and both commonly-cited ranges rather than asserting a single universal cutoff.
Enter Na, Cl, and HCO₃ and click Calculate.
References
  1. Feldman M, Soni N, Dickson B. Influence of hypoalbuminemia or hyperalbuminemia on the serum anion gap. J Lab Clin Med. 2005;146(6):317-320. PMID 16310513. (Source of the albumin-corrected anion gap formula used above: adjusted AG = AG + 2.3 × (4.0 − albumin), from a regression in 5328 patients. Abstract read directly; full text not accessed. Note: a commonly-cited alternative coefficient of 2.5, from Figge et al., is a different, separate estimate — this tool uses Feldman's 2.3 rather than conflating the two.)
  2. Kraut JA, Nagami GT. The serum anion gap in the evaluation of acid-base disorders: what are its limitations and can its effectiveness be improved? Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2013;8(11):2018-2024. Open access (PMC3817903). (Corroborates the ISE-era reference-range shift for anion gap — lower than the classic 8–16 mEq/L figure derived from older flame-photometry/colorimetric assays — used for the analyzer-dependence caveat above.)
  3. Espinel CH. The FENa test. Use in the differential diagnosis of acute renal failure. JAMA. 1976;236(6):579-581. (Original FENa derivation, oliguric patients only; <1% pre-renal, >2% ATN in that population. Paywalled; not read directly — cutoffs cross-checked against multiple independent secondary sources that converge on the same figures.)
  4. Carvounis CP, Nisar S, Guro-Razuman S. Significance of the fractional excretion of urea in the differential diagnosis of acute renal failure. Kidney Int. 2002;62(6):2223-2229. PMID 12427149. (Source of the FEUrea <35% pre-renal / >50% ATN cutoffs and the diuretic-insensitivity rationale referenced in the FENa diuretic caveat above. Abstract read directly; full text not accessed.)
  5. Lim WS, van der Eerden MM, Laing R, et al. Defining community acquired pneumonia severity on presentation to hospital: an international derivation and validation study. Thorax. 2003;58(5):377-382. Open access (PMC1746657). (Original CURB-65 derivation/validation and mortality-band data used above.)
  6. 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. J Thromb Haemost. 2004;2(8):1247-1255. PMID 15304025. (Original PERC rule derivation.)
  7. Kline JA, Courtney DM, Kabrhel C, et al. Prospective multicenter evaluation of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria. J Thromb Haemost. 2008;6(5):772-780. PMID 18318689. (PERC prospective validation, n=8138, confirming the 8-criteria/low-pretest-probability-only use case reflected above. Both PERC papers paywalled; not read directly — the 8 criteria and their exact thresholds were cross-checked across multiple independent, freely-accessible secondary sources that converge exactly.)
  8. Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. A practical scale. Lancet. 1974;2(7872):81-84. (Original GCS; the current 3-point-minimum/15-point-maximum Eye+Verbal+Motor form reflects the 1977 refinement distinguishing abnormal flexion from normal flexion in the motor score, per subsequent historical review — see next reference. Original paper paywalled; not read directly.)
  9. Reith FCM, Van den Brande R, Synnot A, Gruen R, Maas AIR. The reliability of the Glasgow Coma Scale: a systematic review. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(1):3-15. Open access (PMC4698379). (Corroborates the current 3–15 scoring convention and the "T" (untestable/intubated verbal) annotation convention used above.)
  10. Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger M, et al. Evaluation of D-dimer in the diagnosis of suspected deep-vein thrombosis. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(13):1227-1235. (Source of the 2003 "likely/unlikely" dichotomized Wells DVT criteria, weights, and the ≥2 likely / ≤1 unlikely cutoff used above. Paywalled; not read directly — the 10 criteria, their point values, and the cutoff were cross-checked against 3 independent, freely-accessible secondary sources that converge exactly, including one that itself cites this paper directly.)
  11. Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger M, et al. Excluding pulmonary embolism at the bedside without diagnostic imaging: management of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism presenting to the emergency department by using a simple clinical model and d-dimer. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135(2):98-107. (Original weighted 7-criterion Wells PE score and 3-tier low/moderate/high stratification. Paywalled; not read directly — cross-checked against 2 independent secondary sources that converge exactly on all 7 criteria and point values, including the half-point weightings.)
  12. van Belle A, Büller HR, Huisman MV, et al; Christopher Study Investigators. Effectiveness of managing suspected pulmonary embolism using an algorithm combining clinical probability, D-dimer testing, and computed tomography. JAMA. 2006;295(2):172-179. (Source of the two-tier "PE likely" (>4) / "PE unlikely" (≤4) dichotomization of the Wells PE score used above, matching the "Wells ≤4/low-risk category" language already used in the PERC tab. Paywalled; not read directly — the ≤4/>4 cutoff was corroborated against 2 independent secondary sources.)
  13. Six AJ, Backus BE, Kelder JC. Chest pain in the emergency room: value of the HEART score. Neth Heart J. 2008;16(6):191-196. (Original HEART score derivation: the 5-component History/ECG/Age/Risk factors/Troponin structure, 0-2 points each, and the low ≤3 / moderate 4-6 / high ≥7 risk bands. Abstract-level details read via an open-access PMC review citing this paper directly; original full text not independently accessed — the exact point boundaries (age <45/45-65/≥65; troponin ≤1×/1-3×/>3× normal) were corroborated against 2 independent secondary sources that converge exactly.)
  14. Backus BE, Six AJ, Kelder JC, et al. A prospective validation of the HEART score for chest pain patients at the emergency department. Int J Cardiol. 2013;168(3):2153-2158. (Prospective multicenter validation, n=2440, of the HEART score and its MACE risk bands referenced above.)
  15. Blatchford O, Murray WR, Blatchford M. A risk score to predict need for treatment for upper-gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Lancet. 2000;356(9238):1318-1321. PMID 11073021. (Original Glasgow-Blatchford Score derivation: all 8 criteria, their point values, and the 0-23 score range used above. Paywalled; not read directly — cross-checked against 3 independent secondary sources, including one open-access PMC paper whose own table cites this reference directly, all of which converge exactly on every point value.)
  16. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). NIH Stroke Scale (current official version/instructions). ninds.nih.gov. (Primary source of the 15-item point values used above. The official NINDS PDF returned an access-blocked response in this environment and was not read directly — every item's exact wording and point values were corroborated against 5+ independent, freely-accessible hospital/stroke-center training references that converge exactly, including the total-score arithmetic (42) reconstructed independently from the 15 per-item maxima. Confirmed separately via search: the official form also permits "UN" for items 5a/5b, 6a/6b, and 7 on amputation/joint fusion, now reflected above alongside item 10's — this tool reproduces the point values and untestable-item conventions, not every administration/default-scoring rule; see the card's own disclaimer for which rules that leaves to the examiner.)
  17. Brott T, Adams HP Jr, Olinger CP, et al. Measurements of acute cerebral infarction: a clinical examination scale. Stroke. 1989;20(7):864-870. (Original derivation of the scale.)
  18. Lyden P, Brott T, Tilley B, et al, for the NINDS TPA Stroke Study Group. Improved reliability of the NIH Stroke Scale using video training. Stroke. 1994;25(11):2220-2226. (Source of the standardized examiner-training conventions — including the untestable/"UN" item convention reflected in the Dysarthria item above — still in use today.)
Sourcing note: several of the above (Espinel 1976, both Kline PERC papers, Teasdale & Jennett 1974, both Wells papers, the Christopher Study, Six 2008, Blatchford 2000, and the official NINDS NIHSS instructions) are papers/documents that returned paywall/access errors in this environment (or, for Six 2008, were only accessible at abstract/secondary-citation depth) and were not read in full text directly. In each case the specific numeric criteria used in this tool were corroborated against 2 or more independent, freely-accessible secondary sources rather than presented as directly verified against the original — see the individual reference notes above for which sources were and weren't read directly.
Clinical Disclaimer: ScoreRx is a reference and verification aid for licensed healthcare professionals. It is not autonomous clinical software and does not replace clinical judgment, patient-specific assessment, or institutional protocol.
Tool information, sources & feedback

Clinical review: A complete, dated review of this tool is not recorded here. An interface update does not certify its clinical content.

Population & limitations: Read the selected module’s eligibility, exclusions, and warnings alongside its result. Coverage differs by module; a result alone does not establish eligibility.

Open references · Clinical changes & source policy

Distinguish FDA labeling, guideline-supported practice, original validation studies, and institutional protocols when applying a recommendation. Source dates and limitations belong to each recommendation; no site-wide “verified” status is implied.

Report a clinical or interface problem · Interface release: site-2026-09-06. Reports include tool and release identifiers only; no patient inputs or results are attached.