GastroAGI Logo
OverviewBlogsAbout
Trending TopicsDaily BriefConference

117 calculators match

GastroAGI flagship

1
MASLD–MASH NITIntegrated non-invasive assessment of MASLD fibrosis and at-risk MASH — FIB-4, APRI, NFS, FAST, Agile 3+, Agile 4, ELF and ADAPT in one pass

Most used

21
MELD-NaAssesses the severity of chronic liver diseaseChild-Pugh ScoreAssesses the prognosis of chronic liver disease, mainly cirrhosisFIB-4 IndexLiver fibrosis scoring indexAPRIAST to platelet ratio — liver fibrosisMaddrey's DFAlcoholic hepatitis severityGlasgow-BlatchfordUpper GI bleed risk stratificationGAHSGlasgow alcoholic hepatitis scoreMontreal IBDIBD classification — CD & UCMayo ScoreUlcerative colitis activityBISAP ScoreBedside index for severity of pancreatitisCLIF-SOFAOrgan failure scoring in cirrhosisAlcohol ContentStandard drinks & alcohol grams calculatorAARC-ACLFAcute-on-chronic liver failure gradePELD / CR ScorePediatric end-stage liver diseaseHarvey-BradshawCrohn's disease activity indexCTSICT severity index — pancreatitisRockall ScoreGI bleed rebleeding & mortality riskCAGEAlcohol use disorder screening (4 questions)MELD 3.0Updated MELD — sex-inclusive formulaAUDIT ScoreAlcohol use disorders identification testVOCAL-Penn ScorePost-operative mortality risk in cirrhosis surgery

Liver & Cirrhosis

17
ALBI GradeAlbumin-bilirubin liver function grade in HCCUKELD ScoreUK model for end-stage liver diseaseMELD-XIMELD excluding INR — for anticoagulated patientsWest Haven CriteriaHepatic encephalopathy gradingMilan CriteriaLiver transplant eligibility in hepatocellular carcinomaLI-RADS v2018 (CT/MRI)Liver observation category from size, APHE and major featuresBCLC StagingHepatocellular carcinoma stage and treatment allocationSimplified AIH CriteriaSimplified criteria for autoimmune hepatitisRevised Original AIH ScoreIAIHG 1999 comprehensive autoimmune hepatitis scoreSAAGSerum-ascites albumin gradient — cause of ascitesR FactorHepatocellular vs cholestatic pattern in liver injuryCLIF-C ACLFMortality prediction in acute-on-chronic liver failureKing's College CriteriaTransplant criteria in acute liver failureGALAD ScoreHCC detection from gender, age, AFP-L3, AFP and DCPMetroticket 2.0AFP-adjusted up-to-seven for HCC transplant eligibilityRUCAMCausality in drug- and herb-induced liver injuryBaveno VII CriteriacACLD, CSPH and sparing screening endoscopy

Fibrosis & MASLD

8
NAFLD Fibrosis ScoreAdvanced fibrosis probability in MASLD/NAFLDBARD ScoreBMI, AST/ALT ratio, diabetes — MASLD fibrosisFatty Liver IndexPredicts hepatic steatosis from routine labsFibrotic NASH Index (FNI)At-risk NASH probability from AST, HbA1c and HDLNAFLD Activity Score (NAS)Histologic activity grade — steatosis, inflammation, ballooningMEFIB IndexMRE + FIB-4 rule for significant fibrosis (≥F2) in MASLDFAST ScoreFibroScan-AST — at-risk NASH from LSM, CAP and ASTSAFE ScoreSteatosis-Associated Fibrosis Estimator for MASLD in primary care

Pancreas & Biliary

8
Ranson's CriteriaAcute pancreatitis severity at 48 hoursGlasgow-Imrie CriteriaAcute pancreatitis severity — the PANCREAS criteriaHAPSHarmless acute pancreatitis scoreTokyo Guidelines — CholangitisTG18 diagnosis and severity grade for acute cholangitisTokyo Guidelines — CholecystitisTG18 diagnosis and severity grade for acute cholecystitisBiliary Pain (Rome IV)Rome IV — defining biliary-type pain before interventionFunctional Pancreatic SODRome IV — pancreatic sphincter of Oddi disorderRevised Atlanta ClassificationAcute pancreatitis severity — mild, moderately severe, severe

IBD

9
Truelove & Witts CriteriaAcute severe ulcerative colitis — admission decisionUCEISUlcerative colitis endoscopic index of severitySCCAISimple clinical colitis activity index — symptoms onlyCDAICrohn's disease activity index — the trial standardSES-CDEndoscopic severity in Crohn's diseasePUCAIPaediatric ulcerative colitis activity indexTravis (Oxford) CriteriaDay 3 colectomy risk in acute severe ulcerative colitisHo IndexDay 3 steroid failure risk in acute severe ulcerative colitisRutgeerts ScorePostoperative Crohn's recurrence at ileocolonoscopy

GI Bleeding

7
EVendo ScorePredicts oesophageal varices needing treatmentForrest ClassificationPeptic ulcer bleeding — rebleeding risk at endoscopyAIMS65 ScoreUpper GI bleed mortality — five bedside criteriaOakland ScoreSafe-discharge risk for acute lower GI bleedingABC ScoreAge, blood tests, comorbidities — GI bleed mortalitySarin ClassificationEndoscopic classification of gastric varicesEGUS (Gastric Ulcer)Malignancy risk in a gastric ulcer, and who needs repeat endoscopy

Alcohol

2
ABIC ScoreAge, bilirubin, INR, creatinine — alcoholic hepatitisLille ModelSteroid response at day 7 in alcoholic hepatitis

Upper GI

4
Chicago Classification v4.0Oesophageal motility pattern from high-resolution manometryLA Classification (Oesophagitis)Los Angeles grade A–D for erosive oesophagitisPrague C & M CriteriaCircumferential and maximal extent of Barrett's oesophagusEREFS (Eosinophilic Oesophagitis)Endoscopic reference score — oedema, rings, exudates, furrows, stricture

Colorectal

3
Boston Bowel Prep ScaleColonoscopy preparation adequacy by segmentStool Osmotic GapOsmotic vs secretory diarrhoea from stool electrolytesATLAS Score (C. difficile)Predicted response to therapy in Clostridioides difficile infection

Functional GI

37
Bristol Stool ScaleStool form types 1–7 and colonic transitRome IV Criteria for IBSIrritable bowel syndrome diagnosis and subtypeFunctional ConstipationRome IV — two of six items, IBS excludedOpioid-Induced ConstipationRome IV — constipation tied to opioid therapyFunctional DiarrhoeaRome IV — loose stools without predominant painFunctional Bloating / DistensionRome IV — bloating without other bowel disorder criteriaUnspecified Functional Bowel DisorderRome IV — bowel symptoms fitting no other categoryCentrally Mediated Abdominal Pain (CAPS)Rome IV — continuous pain unrelated to gut eventsNarcotic Bowel SyndromeRome IV — opioid-induced hyperalgesia of the gutFaecal Incontinence (Rome IV)Rome IV — the criteria, and why nobody is askedFunctional Anorectal PainLevator ani, unspecified pain and proctalgia fugaxFunctional Defecation DisordersRome IV — dyssynergia and inadequate propulsionInfant RegurgitationRome IV — the happy spitter, and the alarm features that rule it outInfant ColicRome IV — recurrent unexplained crying in a well infant under 5 monthsInfant DyscheziaRome IV — straining before a soft stool, and why not to intervenePaediatric Functional ConstipationRome IV — two of six over one month, with overflow soiling as a criterionToddler's DiarrhoeaRome IV functional diarrhoea of childhood — painless, thriving childPaediatric Cyclic Vomiting SyndromeRome IV — both age bands, with different criteria for eachPaediatric Rumination SyndromeRome IV — infant and child/adolescent criteriaFunctional Nausea & Vomiting (Children)Rome IV — two separate disorders that can be met togetherAerophagiaRome IV — distension that increases through the dayPaediatric Functional DyspepsiaRome IV — four times a month, with PDS and EPS subtypingPaediatric Irritable Bowel SyndromeRome IV — plus the constipation clause clinicians missAbdominal MigraineRome IV — stereotypical incapacitating episodes weeks apartFunctional Abdominal Pain — NOSRome IV — the residual category, reached after the other threeNonretentive Faecal IncontinenceRome IV — soiling without retention, where laxatives make it worseFunctional DyspepsiaRome IV — with PDS and EPS subtypingRumination SyndromeRome IV — effortless regurgitation without retchingCyclic Vomiting SyndromeRome IV — stereotypical episodic vomitingCannabinoid HyperemesisRome IV — CVS pattern relieved by cannabis cessationChronic Nausea & VomitingRome IV — chronic nausea and vomiting syndromeBelching DisordersRome IV — supragastric vs gastric belchingFunctional HeartburnRome IV — heartburn with normal acid exposureReflux HypersensitivityRome IV — normal acid exposure, positive symptom associationFunctional Chest PainRome IV — non-cardiac, non-reflux chest painGlobusRome IV — painless lump-in-throat sensationFunctional DysphagiaRome IV — dysphagia with normal endoscopy and manometry
  1. Calculators
  2. /
  3. Child-Pugh Score
Liver & CirrhosisMost used

Child-Pugh Score

Assesses the prognosis of chronic liver disease, mainly cirrhosis

1 point below 2 mg/dL, 2 points at 2–3, 3 points above 3.

1 point above 3.5 g/dL, 2 points at 2.8–3.5, 3 points below 2.8.

1 point below 1.7, 2 points at 1.7–2.3, 3 points above 2.3.

West Haven grade. Grades 1–2 score 2 points and grades 3–4 score 3 — the categories are not one point per grade.

Every category scores 1–3, so the minimum total is 5 and the maximum 15.

When to use
Use it to stage cirrhosis at the bedside, and specifically whenever you need a Child-Pugh class rather than a prognostic number — most hepatic drug-dosing guidance, oncology trial eligibility and interventional guidance are written as class A/B/C, with no MELD equivalent. It is also a reasonable quick assessment when INR and sodium are not to hand, and it remains the reference tool in hepatocellular carcinoma staging alongside BCLC. It is not the right tool for transplant priority, where MELD 3.0 is, and it is not validated in acute liver failure.
Why use it
Because a large amount of clinical guidance simply cannot be applied without it. If a drug label says 'avoid in Child-Pugh C', or a trial enrols 'Child-Pugh A only', there is no way to convert a MELD score into that answer — the two are not interconvertible. Child-Pugh also captures two things MELD deliberately ignores: ascites and encephalopathy. Those are the findings that most change how a patient looks in front of you, and a score that includes them can be more clinically recognisable than one built purely from laboratory values, even though including them is exactly why it is less objective.
Formula, evidence and interpretation

About the Child-Turcotte-Pugh Score (Child-Pugh)

The Child-Pugh score grades the severity of cirrhosis from five variables — total bilirubin, serum albumin, INR, ascites and hepatic encephalopathy. Each scores 1 to 3 points, so the total runs from 5 to 15 and sorts patients into class A (5–6), class B (7–9) or class C (10–15). Class A is well-compensated disease, class B significant functional compromise, and class C decompensated cirrhosis. Although MELD has replaced it for transplant allocation, Child-Pugh class remains the language of drug labels, trial eligibility criteria and procedural guidance.

On this page

  • Formula
  • Interpreting the result
  • Inputs
  • What it returns
  • How it is calculated
  • Facts & figures
  • Evidence
  • How it compares
  • Pearls & pitfalls
  • Critical actions
  • Why it exists
  • About the creator
  • Limitations
  • If you are the patient
  • FAQ
  • Related calculators
  • References

Formula

Child-Pugh = bilirubin points + albumin points + INR points + ascites points + encephalopathy points Class A = 5–6 Class B = 7–9 Class C = 10–15
Bilirubin points
1 if < 2 mg/dL, 2 if 2–3 mg/dL, 3 if > 3 mg/dL.
Albumin points
1 if > 3.5 g/dL, 2 if 2.8–3.5 g/dL, 3 if < 2.8 g/dL.
INR points
1 if < 1.7, 2 if 1.7–2.3, 3 if > 2.3.
Ascites points
1 if none, 2 if mild/diuretic-responsive, 3 if moderate-severe/refractory.
Encephalopathy points
1 if none, 2 if West Haven grade 1–2, 3 if grade 3–4.
  • It is a simple additive point score, which is why it can be done at the bedside without a calculator — the reason it has outlasted more accurate models.
  • Minimum 5, maximum 15. There is no 0.
  • For SI units, divide bilirubin in µmol/L by 17.1 and albumin in g/L by 10, or use the unit toggles on this page.

Interpreting the result

Read the class first and the number second, because the class is what published guidance is written against. Then look at which categories are driving the total: a score of 8 made up of laboratory abnormalities is a different patient from an 8 driven by refractory ascites and encephalopathy, and only the second is likely to need urgent transplant discussion. Because two of the five items are subjective, treat a borderline score as borderline — a 6 and a 7 recorded by different clinicians on the same patient is common, and it is the difference between class A and class B.

ScoreBandWhat it meansAction
5–6Class AWell-compensated disease. Around 95–100% one-year and 85% two-year survival in observational seriesSurveillance (six-monthly ultrasound, variceal screening); treat the underlying aetiology
7–9Class BSignificant functional compromise. Around 80% one-year and 60% two-year survival; markedly increased surgical riskTransplant assessment; review every drug for hepatic dosing; treat ascites and encephalopathy actively
10–15Class CDecompensated disease. Around 45% one-year and 35% two-year survivalUrgent transplant evaluation if a candidate; expect poor tolerance of surgery and anaesthesia

Scroll the table sideways for every column.

What the Child-Pugh Score needs (5 inputs)

Total bilirubin (mg/dL)
1 point below 2 mg/dL, 2 points at 2–3, 3 points above 3. In primary biliary cholangitis and primary sclerosing cholangitis some centres use higher thresholds (4 and 10 mg/dL), because cholestatic disease raises bilirubin without the same prognostic weight.
Serum albumin (g/dL)
1 point above 3.5 g/dL, 2 points at 2.8–3.5, 3 points below 2.8. Albumin is confounded by sepsis, nephrotic-range proteinuria and recent albumin infusion, none of which reflect synthetic liver function.
INR
1 point below 1.7, 2 points at 1.7–2.3, 3 points above 2.3. Some versions of the score use prothrombin time prolongation in seconds instead; the classes are the same but the boundaries are not interchangeable.
Ascites
1 point for none, 2 for mild or diuretic-responsive, 3 for moderate-to-severe or refractory. This is a clinical judgement, and it is the single largest source of disagreement between two clinicians scoring the same patient.
Hepatic encephalopathy
1 point for none, 2 points for West Haven grade 1–2, 3 points for grade 3–4. Note this is not one point per grade — the five West Haven grades collapse into three scoring bands.

Units. Enter bilirubin in mg/dL and albumin in g/dL, or switch the unit toggles to µmol/L and g/L and the calculator converts exactly (bilirubin ÷ 17.1, albumin ÷ 10). If your service reports prothrombin time in seconds rather than INR, convert to INR before entering — the point thresholds here are the INR ones, and the seconds-based version of the score uses different boundaries.

What it returns

Child-Pugh score (5–15)
The sum of the five categories. Because every category scores at least 1, the minimum is 5 — a total below that indicates the inputs were mapped wrongly.
Child-Pugh class (A, B or C)
A for 5–6, B for 7–9, C for 10–15. The class is what most guidance is written against, so it usually matters more than the number.

How it is calculated

Child and Turcotte published the original classification in 1964 for patients undergoing portosystemic shunt surgery, using bilirubin, albumin, ascites, encephalopathy and nutritional status. Pugh's 1973 modification, in patients undergoing oesophageal transection for bleeding varices, replaced nutritional status — the most subjective item — with prothrombin time, and it is Pugh's version that is used today. The arithmetic is deliberately crude: each variable is compressed into three bands and the bands are simply summed, with no weighting. That means a patient can move from class A to class B on a single laboratory value crossing a threshold by 0.1, and two patients with the same total can be clinically very different.

Facts & figures

How each variable is scored
Variable1 point2 points3 points
Total bilirubin (mg/dL)< 22–3> 3
Serum albumin (g/dL)> 3.52.8–3.5< 2.8
INR< 1.71.7–2.3> 2.3
AscitesNoneMild / diuretic-responsiveModerate–severe / refractory
Encephalopathy (West Haven)NoneGrade 1–2Grade 3–4

Scroll the table sideways for every column.

Cholestatic disease (PBC, PSC) is sometimes scored with higher bilirubin thresholds of 4 and 10 mg/dL. Say which convention you used when recording the score.

Evidence

Original classification — Child & Turcotte

1964

Described for patients with cirrhosis undergoing portosystemic shunt surgery, using bilirubin, albumin, ascites, encephalopathy and nutritional status. It was a surgical risk classification, not a general prognostic model.

Pugh's modification — oesophageal transection series

1973

Pugh and colleagues applied the classification to patients undergoing transection of the oesophagus for bleeding varices, replacing nutritional status with prothrombin time. This is the version in universal use. The original paper has no abstract and the survival figures usually quoted for class A, B and C come from later observational series rather than from Pugh's own data.

Displacement by MELD for allocation

2003

When MELD was compared with Child-Turcotte-Pugh for waiting-list prioritisation, MELD discriminated three-month mortality better and, being built only from laboratory values, could not be influenced by subjective assessment. US allocation moved to MELD in 2002.

In the VOCAL-Penn surgical-risk study, Child-Turcotte-Pugh had the weakest 30-day discrimination of every tool compared, with a C-statistic of 0.682 against 0.859 for a purpose-built surgical model.

How it compares

Child-Pugh Score vs MELD-Na

Use MELD-Na or MELD 3.0 for prognosis and transplant priority, and Child-Pugh whenever you need a class — the two answer different questions and cannot be converted into one another.

MELD-Na is continuous, fully objective, and validated for three-month mortality, which is why allocation moved to it. Child-Pugh contains two subjectively graded variables and compresses everything into three bands, so it discriminates less well. But drug labels, trial eligibility and procedural guidance are written in Child-Pugh classes, and no MELD score answers 'is this patient Child-Pugh B'. Most patients under assessment need both recorded.

Open the MELD-Na calculator →

Child-Pugh Score vs ALBI grade

ALBI is the better choice when you want liver function graded objectively in hepatocellular carcinoma — it uses only albumin and bilirubin, so it removes the subjectivity that limits Child-Pugh.

ALBI was developed specifically because Child-Pugh class A is heterogeneous in HCC populations and the subjective items make it unreliable for stratifying trial cohorts. ALBI splits patients on albumin and bilirubin alone and discriminates within Child-Pugh A. It says nothing about ascites or encephalopathy, so it is a complement rather than a replacement for general cirrhosis staging.

Open the ALBI grade calculator →

Child-Pugh Score vs CLIF-SOFA

Switch to CLIF-SOFA when the question is acute-on-chronic liver failure rather than chronic severity — Child-Pugh was not built for an acutely deteriorating patient and does not count organ failures.

Child-Pugh describes the chronic state of the liver. CLIF-SOFA counts failing organ systems, including renal, circulatory, cerebral and respiratory, and grades ACLF by how many have failed — which is what actually predicts 28-day mortality in a decompensating inpatient. A patient can be Child-Pugh B and have grade 3 ACLF.

Open the CLIF-SOFA calculator →

Pearls & pitfalls

  • The minimum score is 5, not 0 or 3. Every category scores at least 1 point, so a healthy person would score 5 if you scored them at all.
  • Encephalopathy grades do not map one-to-one onto points. West Haven grades 1 and 2 both score 2 points, and grades 3 and 4 both score 3 — grade 4 does not score 4.
  • Ascites and encephalopathy are subjective, and inter-observer disagreement on them is the main reason the same patient can be scored A by one clinician and B by another. Record what you observed, not just the total.
  • Albumin is dragged down by sepsis, proteinuria and dilution, and pushed up by recent infusion. A patient given albumin for large-volume paracentesis yesterday will score better today without being better.
  • Class A covers a wide range. A score of 5 and a score of 6 are both class A, but a 6 driven by a bilirubin of 2.5 is not the same patient as a 5 with normal labs.
  • Bilirubin thresholds differ in cholestatic disease. If you are scoring PBC or PSC, note which convention you used, because the two give different classes for the same patient.
  • Child-Pugh and MELD are not interconvertible in either direction. If guidance asks for a class, you need the class.

Critical actions

  • Record which categories drove the score, not only the total — the composition changes management more than the number does.
  • Check every prescription against hepatic dosing guidance once a patient reaches class B; several common drugs are contraindicated from class B onward.
  • Calculate MELD 3.0 as well if transplant priority is the question, since Child-Pugh does not answer it.
  • Do not use Child-Pugh class alone to refuse surgery — use a model built for operative risk, which accounts for the specific procedure.
  • Reassess after treating ascites or encephalopathy: the class can improve, and a class recorded during an acute decompensation may not represent the patient's baseline.
  • Start hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance and variceal screening in every class, including class A — good compensation is not an absence of risk.

Why this score exists

Both versions of this score were built to answer a surgical question, not a prognostic one. Child and Turcotte were assessing who could survive a portosystemic shunt; Pugh was assessing who could survive oesophageal transection. The score became a general-purpose severity classification afterwards, by adoption rather than by design, which explains its weaknesses — nobody set out to build a model for drug dosing or trial eligibility, and the coarse three-band structure that makes it easy to do by hand is the same structure that makes it imprecise. Pugh's specific contribution is instructive: he removed nutritional status precisely because it was too subjective to score reliably, yet left ascites and encephalopathy in, and those remain the score's weakest links.

About the creator

  • Charles G. Child III

    Originator of the 1964 classification

    With Jeremiah Turcotte, published the original A/B/C grading of hepatic reserve in patients undergoing portosystemic shunt surgery. He is not an author of the 1973 paper cited here.

  • Richard N. H. Pugh

    First author, 1973 modification

    Modified the classification for use in transection of the oesophagus for bleeding varices, replacing nutritional status with prothrombin time — the version in use today.

Limitations

  • Two of the five variables are graded subjectively, so the same patient can be scored differently by different clinicians, and a borderline case can cross a class boundary on opinion alone.
  • The three-band structure discards information: a bilirubin of 2.1 and one of 3.0 score identically, and a value 0.1 either side of a threshold changes the class.
  • Class C spans 10 to 15, so it groups patients with very different prognoses together.
  • Albumin and INR are both affected by things other than liver synthesis — infusion, sepsis, proteinuria, anticoagulation.
  • It was derived for surgical decisions in the 1960s and 1970s, in populations and with treatments that no longer resemble current practice, and the survival figures quoted for each class come from later observational series rather than the original papers.
  • It says nothing about renal function, which is a major determinant of outcome in cirrhosis and is the reason MELD includes creatinine.

If you are the patient

The Child-Pugh score is a way of describing how well your liver is working, using three blood tests and two things your doctor examines you for — fluid in the abdomen (ascites) and whether liver problems are affecting your concentration or alertness. The total puts you in class A, B or C. Class A means the liver is coping well despite scarring; class B means it is struggling in ways that need active management; class C means it is failing and transplant is usually part of the conversation. Two things are worth knowing. First, the class is used to decide which medicines are safe for you, which is why your team records it even when they also use other scores. Second, it can improve — treating fluid build-up or an infection can move someone from class B back toward class A, so a class measured when you were acutely unwell is not necessarily your baseline. Ask which parts of the score are highest for you, because that points at what can be treated.

Frequently asked questions

What is the Child-Pugh score?#

The Child-Pugh score grades the severity of cirrhosis from five variables — total bilirubin, serum albumin, INR, ascites and hepatic encephalopathy — each scoring 1 to 3 points. The total runs from 5 to 15 and gives class A (5–6), class B (7–9) or class C (10–15).

What are the Child-Pugh classes A, B and C?#

Class A is 5–6 points and represents well-compensated cirrhosis. Class B is 7–9 points and represents significant functional compromise. Class C is 10–15 points and represents decompensated cirrhosis. Reported survival falls across the classes, from roughly 95–100% one-year survival in class A to around 45% in class C in observational series.

Is Child-Pugh class B bad?#

Class B means the liver has lost meaningful reserve and needs active management — it is the point at which many drugs require dose adjustment or become contraindicated, surgical risk rises substantially, and transplant assessment is usually appropriate. It is not the end stage; class C is more advanced. Class B can also improve if a treatable driver such as ascites, infection or continued alcohol use is addressed.

What is the lowest Child-Pugh score?#

Five. Every one of the five categories scores at least 1 point, so 5 is the minimum and there is no score of 0, 3 or 4. If a calculator returns less than 5, its category mapping is wrong.

Is Child-Pugh or MELD better?#

For prognosis and transplant priority, MELD — it discriminates three-month mortality better and is fully objective, which is why US allocation moved to it in 2002. For anything expressed in Child-Pugh classes, such as hepatic drug dosing or trial eligibility, Child-Pugh is the only option, because the two scores cannot be converted into each other.

How is hepatic encephalopathy scored in Child-Pugh?#

In three bands, not five: no encephalopathy scores 1 point, West Haven grade 1–2 scores 2 points, and grade 3–4 scores 3 points. Grade 4 encephalopathy does not score 4 points, because no Child-Pugh category exceeds 3.

Can the Child-Pugh score improve?#

Yes. Ascites and encephalopathy both respond to treatment, and albumin and bilirubin can improve when a precipitant such as infection or alcohol is removed. A score recorded during an acute decompensation often overstates the patient's baseline, which is why it is worth repeating once they are stable.

Does Child-Pugh include kidney function?#

No. There is no creatinine or renal term, which is one of its main limitations — renal dysfunction is a major determinant of outcome in cirrhosis. MELD includes creatinine specifically for that reason.

Related calculators

  • BCLC Staging — Hepatocellular carcinoma stage and treatment allocation
  • SAAG — Serum-ascites albumin gradient — cause of ascites
  • MELD-Na — Assesses the severity of chronic liver disease
  • MELD 3.0 — Updated MELD — sex-inclusive formula
  • ALBI Grade — Albumin-bilirubin liver function grade in HCC
  • CLIF-SOFA — Organ failure scoring in cirrhosis
  • VOCAL-Penn Score — Post-operative mortality risk in cirrhosis surgery
  • Baveno VII Criteria — cACLD, CSPH and sparing screening endoscopy

References

Original / primary reference

  1. Pugh RNH, Murray-Lyon IM, Dawson JL, Pietroni MC, Williams R. Transection of the oesophagus for bleeding oesophageal varices. Br J Surg. 1973;60(8):646-649.
  2. Child CG, Turcotte JG. Surgery and portal hypertension. In: The Liver and Portal Hypertension. Major Probl Clin Surg. 1964;1:1-85.

Comparison and context

  1. Wiesner R, Edwards E, Freeman R, et al. Model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) and allocation of donor livers. Gastroenterology. 2003;124(1):91-96.
  2. Tsoris A, Marlar CA. Use of the Child Pugh Score in Liver Disease. StatPearls. 2023.

Clinical practice guidelines

  1. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with decompensated cirrhosis. J Hepatol. 2018;69(2):406-460.

Last updated July 29, 2026. Clinical knowledge base written and curated by GastroAGI Team from primary medical literature.

Written from primary literature and not yet independently clinically reviewed.

For use by qualified healthcare professionals. This calculator supports clinical judgement and does not replace it.