GastroAGI Logo
OverviewBlogsAbout
Trending TopicsDaily BriefConference

116 calculators match

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. Tokyo Guidelines — Cholecystitis
Pancreas & Biliary

Tokyo Guidelines — Cholecystitis

TG18 diagnosis and severity grade for acute cholecystitis

A — Local signs of inflammation

Either item counts.

B — Systemic signs of inflammation

Any item counts.

C — Imaging

Required for a definite diagnosis.

Gallbladder wall thickening, distension, pericholecystic fluid, sonographic Murphy's sign, or gallstone/debris. Required for a definite diagnosis.

Organ dysfunction (Grade III)

Any single one of these makes it Grade III (severe), whatever the other findings show. Grade III is assessed first and overrides everything below.

Grade II criteria

Any ONE of these makes it Grade II (moderate), provided no organ dysfunction is present. Note this differs from cholangitis, which needs two.

A much higher bar than the cholangitis Grade II threshold of 12,000.

The item most often overlooked, and the one that most often changes the grade. It is a history question, not a test.

The diagnostic rule differs from the cholangitis one in an important way: imaging (C) is required for a DEFINITE diagnosis here, whereas cholangitis can be confirmed by A + B + C with B or C interchangeable for suspicion. Grade II is also any ONE criterion, not two.

When to use
Use it in any patient with right upper quadrant pain and suspected gallbladder inflammation, to confirm the diagnosis and grade it before deciding on management. The grade should be established during the index admission, because it drives whether early laparoscopic cholecystectomy is appropriate, whether the operation should be expected to be difficult, and whether percutaneous cholecystostomy is the safer route. It applies to acute cholecystitis rather than cholangitis, which shares the Tokyo Guidelines name but has entirely separate criteria and a different Grade II rule.
Why use it
Because the decision in cholecystitis is not really whether to treat but when and how to operate, and that decision needs a shared vocabulary. TG18 does two useful things at once. It replaces an impressionistic diagnosis — right upper quadrant pain plus a hunch — with criteria that separate local from systemic inflammation and require imaging for confirmation, which matters because biliary colic, cholangitis and a perforated ulcer all present similarly. And its severity grade doubles as an operative warning: Grade II specifically describes a gallbladder inflamed enough that cholecystectomy becomes technically harder and the risk of bile duct injury rises. That makes the grade a planning tool for the surgeon rather than only a descriptor of how sick the patient looks.
Formula, evidence and interpretation

About the Tokyo Guidelines 2018 (TG18) for Acute Cholecystitis

Local signs plus systemic signs give a suspected diagnosis; adding characteristic imaging makes it definite. Severity then runs top-down: Grade III (severe) is any single organ dysfunction, Grade II (moderate) is any ONE of four criteria — white cell count above 18,000/mm³, a palpable tender right upper quadrant mass, symptoms lasting more than 72 hours, or marked local inflammation — and Grade I is everything else. Two differences from the cholangitis version catch people out: imaging is required for a definite diagnosis here rather than being interchangeable, and Grade II needs one criterion rather than two. The grade is as much a warning about the difficulty of the operation as about the patient.

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

Diagnosis: suspected = A + B definite = A + B + C Severity, assessed in this order: Grade III = any ONE organ dysfunction Grade II = any ONE of four criteria (no organ dysfunction) Grade I = neither of the above
A — local signs of inflammation
Murphy's sign; or right upper quadrant mass, pain or tenderness.
B — systemic signs of inflammation
Fever; elevated CRP; or elevated white cell count. Any one.
C — imaging
Findings characteristic of acute cholecystitis. Required for a definite diagnosis, unlike in cholangitis where B and C are interchangeable for suspicion.
Grade III organ dysfunction
Cardiovascular, neurological, respiratory, renal, hepatic or haematological, at thresholds identical to the cholangitis criteria. Any one is sufficient.
Grade II criteria
WBC above 18,000/mm³; palpable tender RUQ mass; symptoms beyond 72 hours; marked local inflammation. Only ONE is required.
  • Grade II requires only ONE criterion here. The cholangitis version requires TWO of its five. The two Tokyo scores are not symmetrical and this is the most consequential difference between them.
  • The Grade II white cell threshold is above 18,000/mm³, considerably higher than the 12,000/mm³ used in cholangitis Grade II.
  • Duration of symptoms beyond 72 hours is a history item, not a test, and is the criterion most often overlooked. On its own it converts Grade I to Grade II with nothing else changed.
  • Imaging is required for a definite diagnosis. A + B without imaging is suspected only.
  • TG18 does not specify numeric thresholds for the diagnostic fever, CRP and white cell items, unlike the cholangitis criteria which do. This is a real looseness rather than an omission in this summary.
  • Severity is assessed top-down: organ dysfunction is Grade III whatever the Grade II items show, and the counts do not add together.

Interpreting the result

Take the diagnosis and the grade separately. A suspected diagnosis means the criteria as recorded are incomplete, usually because imaging has not yet been done, rather than that the disease is milder. The grade then guides management. Grade I in a fit patient supports early laparoscopic cholecystectomy during the index admission rather than a deferred interval operation. Grade II says the same operation will be harder: this is the point at which the surgeon should plan for a difficult dissection, have a bail-out strategy in mind, and consider whether subtotal cholecystectomy is the safer finish. Grade III means organ dysfunction and demands urgent source control alongside support, with TG18 explicitly permitting either emergency cholecystectomy or percutaneous cholecystostomy depending on the patient's fitness and the expertise available. As with cholangitis, the grade is a snapshot and should be recalculated — the 72-hour criterion alone means a patient can move from Grade I to Grade II purely through the passage of time.

ScoreBandWhat it meansAction
Grade IMildNo organ dysfunction and none of the four Grade II criteria. A healthy patient with mild gallbladder inflammationEarly laparoscopic cholecystectomy during the index admission in a fit patient, plus antimicrobials
Grade IIModerateAny one of: WBC above 18,000/mm³, palpable tender RUQ mass, symptoms beyond 72 hours, or marked local inflammation. Predicts a technically difficult cholecystectomyEarly surgical assessment; plan for a hard dissection with a bail-out strategy, or percutaneous cholecystostomy if unfit
Grade IIISevereDysfunction of any one of six organ systems. The highest-mortality groupOrgan support with urgent source control — emergency cholecystectomy or percutaneous cholecystostomy, by fitness and local expertise
Criteria not metNot diagnosticDoes not exclude cholecystitis. TG18 is a diagnostic framework, not a rule-out testArrange ultrasound if not already done; imaging is usually the missing item rather than a genuinely negative one

What the Tokyo Guidelines — Cholecystitis needs (6 inputs)

A-1: Murphy's sign
Inspiratory arrest on palpation of the right upper quadrant. A local sign; either A item is sufficient for category A.
A-2: Right upper quadrant mass, pain or tenderness
Any of the three counts.
B-1, B-2, B-3: Fever, elevated CRP, elevated white cell count
Systemic signs of inflammation. Any one is sufficient for category B. TG18 does not fix numeric thresholds for these diagnostic items, which is a genuine looseness in the criteria.
C: Imaging findings characteristic of acute cholecystitis
Gallbladder wall thickening, distension, pericholecystic fluid, a sonographic Murphy's sign, or gallstones and debris. Required for a definite diagnosis — this is where the cholecystitis rule differs from the cholangitis one.
Organ dysfunction (six systems)
Cardiovascular (dopamine ≥ 5 µg/kg/min or any noradrenaline), neurological (decreased consciousness), respiratory (PaO₂/FiO₂ below 300), renal (oliguria or creatinine above 2.0 mg/dL), hepatic (PT-INR above 1.5), haematological (platelets below 100,000/mm³). Identical to the cholangitis thresholds. Any one makes it Grade III.
Grade II criteria (four items)
White cell count above 18,000/mm³; palpable tender right upper quadrant mass; symptoms lasting more than 72 hours; marked local inflammation (gangrenous or emphysematous cholecystitis, pericholecystic or hepatic abscess, biliary peritonitis). Any ONE makes it Grade II.

Units. The Grade II white cell threshold is expressed as above 18,000/mm³, which is the same as 18 ×10⁹/L — the two conventions appear interchangeably across the guideline. Creatinine above 2.0 mg/dL for renal dysfunction is about 177 µmol/L. The diagnostic fever, CRP and white cell items carry no numeric thresholds in TG18 and depend on local reference ranges.

What it returns

Diagnostic status
Definite, suspected, or criteria not met. Suspected is local plus systemic signs; definite additionally requires imaging.
Severity grade
Grade I (mild), II (moderate) or III (severe). Assessed top-down, so organ dysfunction settles it regardless of the Grade II items.
Which organ systems are failing
Listed explicitly, since Grade III alone does not tell the receiving team what needs supporting.

How it is calculated

The criteria separate the two things that make cholecystitis diagnosable — something wrong locally at the gallbladder, and a systemic inflammatory response — and then require imaging to confirm that the local finding really is the gallbladder. That structure exists because right upper quadrant pain has a long differential: uncomplicated biliary colic produces pain without inflammation, cholangitis produces systemic inflammation with cholestasis rather than local gallbladder signs, and a perforated ulcer or hepatic abscess can mimic both. Requiring one item from each category filters these apart. The severity grading was built around a different question from the cholangitis one. In cholangitis the grade tracks how urgently the biliary tree must be decompressed; in cholecystitis it tracks how difficult and dangerous the operation will be. That is why the Grade II list contains a palpable mass, a duration threshold and specific pathological findings such as gangrene or emphysematous change — these describe a gallbladder that has become hostile to dissect, in a hilum where planes are lost and the bile duct is at risk.

Facts & figures

The diagnostic criteria
CategoryItems
A — local signs of inflammationMurphy's sign · right upper quadrant mass, pain or tenderness
B — systemic signs of inflammationFever · elevated CRP · elevated white cell count
C — imagingFindings characteristic of acute cholecystitis: wall thickening, distension, pericholecystic fluid, sonographic Murphy's sign, stones or debris

Suspected = one item in A plus one item in B. Definite = A plus B plus C. Unlike the cholangitis criteria, imaging is not interchangeable with another category — it is required for a definite diagnosis.

Where the two Tokyo scores differ
CholangitisCholecystitis
Suspected diagnosisA + (B or C)A + B
Definite diagnosisA + B + CA + B + C (imaging mandatory)
Grade II ruleAny TWO of fiveAny ONE of four
Grade II white cell thresholdAbove 12,000 or below 4,000/mm³Above 18,000/mm³
Grade IIIAny one of six organ dysfunctionsIdentical — same six, same thresholds
What the grade drivesTiming of biliary drainageTiming and difficulty of cholecystectomy

Grade III is the only part the two share exactly. Everything else differs, which is why they are two calculators rather than one with a toggle.

Evidence

TG18 diagnostic criteria and severity grading — Yokoe et al.

2018

The 2018 revision of the Tokyo Guidelines cholecystitis chapter, developed by an international consensus group with accompanying validation of the diagnostic criteria and severity grading against clinical and pathological outcomes.

The criteria retain the TG13 structure with revised supporting evidence, and the severity grading is supported by its association with operative difficulty, conversion rates and mortality.

Management flowchart — Okamoto et al.

2018

The TG18 chapter translating the severity grade into a management algorithm, covering the choice between early cholecystectomy, delayed surgery and percutaneous cholecystostomy across the three grades.

Establishes early laparoscopic cholecystectomy as preferred in Grade I and selected Grade II patients, with cholecystostomy reserved for those unfit for surgery, and permits either route at Grade III depending on fitness and expertise.

Surgical management and bail-out strategies — Wakabayashi et al.

2018

The TG18 chapter on safe steps in laparoscopic cholecystectomy, addressing the difficult gallbladder that the Grade II criteria describe.

Sets out the critical view of safety and formal bail-out options including subtotal cholecystectomy, which is the practical consequence of a Grade II designation for the operating surgeon.

Pathological correlation

2023

Independent study relating TG severity grade to histopathological severity in resected gallbladders.

Supports an association between the TG grade and the degree of pathological inflammation found at surgery, while showing the correlation is imperfect — a reminder that the grade describes the clinical situation rather than the specimen.

How it compares

Tokyo Guidelines — Cholecystitis vs Tokyo Guidelines for acute cholangitis

Different diseases sharing a name — and the Grade II rules differ, one criterion here against two there, which is where they are most often confused.

Cholecystitis is inflammation of the gallbladder, treated by removing or draining it; cholangitis is infection of an obstructed biliary tree, treated by decompressing the duct. The diagnostic criteria differ in structure (imaging is mandatory for a definite cholecystitis diagnosis but interchangeable with cholestasis for suspected cholangitis), and the Grade II rules differ in both the number of criteria required and the white cell threshold. Only Grade III is identical between them. The two can coexist, and when they do, both need addressing separately.

Open the Tokyo Guidelines for acute cholangitis calculator →Kiriyama S, Kozaka K, Takada T, et al. Tokyo Guidelines 2018: diagnostic criteria and severity grading of acute cholangitis (with videos). J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2018;25(1):17-30.

Tokyo Guidelines — Cholecystitis vs Rome IV biliary pain criteria

Opposite ends of the same spectrum — Rome IV defines biliary-type pain without inflammation, TG18 defines the inflamed gallbladder.

Rome IV biliary pain criteria exist to characterise episodic pain of biliary type in a patient who is not acutely inflamed, typically before considering cholecystectomy for functional gallbladder disorder. TG18 requires systemic inflammatory signs and imaging change. A patient meeting Rome IV criteria has, by definition, not got acute cholecystitis at that moment, and the distinction determines whether the operation is urgent or elective.

Open the Rome IV biliary pain criteria calculator →

Tokyo Guidelines — Cholecystitis vs Ultrasound findings alone

Insufficient on their own — imaging is category C, one of three required categories, not the diagnosis.

Gallstones are common and frequently incidental, and wall thickening occurs in ascites, heart failure, hepatitis and hypoalbuminaemia without any cholecystitis. TG18 requires a local sign and a systemic inflammatory sign alongside the imaging precisely so that an incidental ultrasound finding in a patient with another cause for their pain is not mislabelled.

Pearls & pitfalls

  • Grade II needs only ONE criterion here, against TWO for cholangitis. Applying the cholangitis rule under-grades cholecystitis and is the commonest cross-contamination between the two scores.
  • The Grade II white cell threshold is 18,000/mm³, not the 12,000/mm³ used in cholangitis. A count of 15,000 is not a Grade II criterion in cholecystitis.
  • Symptom duration beyond 72 hours is a Grade II criterion on its own. It is a history question rather than a test, and it is the item most often forgotten — a patient can move from Grade I to Grade II with no change in any measurement.
  • Imaging is required for a definite diagnosis. A + B alone is suspected, which is a real distinction rather than a formality.
  • Read Grade II as a warning about the operation, not only about the patient. It predicts a difficult dissection and a higher risk of bile duct injury.
  • Where the dissection is unsafe, subtotal cholecystectomy or conversion is the correct bail-out, not persistence in a hostile hilum. TG18 devotes a chapter to this.
  • Consider whether the picture is actually cholangitis. The two coexist, and cholangitis needs biliary rather than gallbladder drainage — draining the gallbladder does not treat an obstructed duct.
  • TG18 does not give numeric thresholds for the diagnostic fever, CRP and WBC items. Document the actual values so the assessment can be re-derived by whoever reads the note.

Critical actions

  • Grade I in a fit patient: offer early laparoscopic cholecystectomy during the index admission rather than a deferred interval operation.
  • Grade II: refer for early surgical assessment and plan for a technically difficult operation with an explicit bail-out strategy.
  • Grade III: provide organ support and arrange urgent source control — emergency cholecystectomy or percutaneous cholecystostomy by fitness and local expertise.
  • Start antimicrobials and take blood cultures before the first dose in every grade.
  • Actively exclude coexisting cholangitis, which requires biliary drainage rather than gallbladder-directed treatment.
  • Recalculate the grade during the admission — the 72-hour criterion alone can change it without any other change in the patient.
  • Where percutaneous cholecystostomy is used, plan the definitive operation rather than treating the drain as the endpoint.

Why this score exists

The most useful thing to understand about this grading is that it was not built purely as a measure of how ill the patient is. Grade II contains a palpable mass, a 72-hour duration threshold and a list of specific pathological findings — gangrene, emphysematous change, pericholecystic abscess — none of which are physiological markers in the way organ dysfunction is. What they have in common is that each predicts a gallbladder that will be hard and hazardous to remove, with obliterated planes and a bile duct at risk. Reading Grade II as a statement about operative difficulty rather than about sickness explains why a comparatively well patient whose symptoms started four days ago earns the same grade as one with a white cell count of 20,000, and why the guideline pairs the grade with an explicit chapter on bail-out strategies.

About the creator

  • Masamichi Yokoe

    First author, TG18 cholecystitis diagnostic criteria and severity grading

    Led the cholecystitis diagnostic criteria and severity grading chapters of the 2013 and 2018 guidelines.

  • Jiro Hata

    Co-author of the TG18 cholecystitis diagnostic criteria and severity grading chapter.

  • Tadahiro Takada

    Chair of the Tokyo Guidelines revision committee

    Led the Tokyo Guidelines programme across the 2007, 2013 and 2018 editions.

Limitations

  • The diagnostic items for fever, CRP and white cell count carry no numeric thresholds, unlike the cholangitis criteria, which leaves real interpretive latitude in category B.
  • Murphy's sign has modest and operator-dependent sensitivity, particularly in older patients, who are also the group in whom cholecystitis is most likely to be severe.
  • The severity grading is consensus-derived rather than fitted to outcome data, so the choice of four Grade II items and the one-of-four rule is expert judgement.
  • Grade II mixes a laboratory value, a physical sign, a history item and a set of pathological findings, which means two patients with the same grade can be clinically very different.
  • Correlation between the TG grade and histopathological severity is imperfect — the grade describes the clinical situation rather than what is found in the specimen.
  • The grading is a snapshot with no representation of trajectory, despite duration being one of its own criteria.
  • It does not identify coexisting cholangitis or choledocholithiasis, both of which change management and need separate assessment.

If you are the patient

Acute cholecystitis is inflammation of the gallbladder, usually because a gallstone has blocked its outlet. The Tokyo Guidelines are a checklist doctors use to confirm the diagnosis and then grade how severe it is, from I to III. The diagnosis needs three things: signs of a problem in the right upper part of the abdomen, signs that the body is mounting an inflammatory response, and a scan showing changes in the gallbladder. The grade then helps decide the plan. Grade I usually means keyhole surgery to remove the gallbladder during the same hospital stay, which is generally better than waiting. Grade II means the gallbladder is inflamed enough that the operation is likely to be more difficult, so the surgical team plans accordingly. Grade III means other organs are being affected and the person needs intensive support alongside either surgery or a drain placed into the gallbladder through the skin. One thing worth knowing: if symptoms have been going on for more than three days, that alone moves the grade up, because the longer the inflammation has been present the harder the operation becomes.

Frequently asked questions

What are the Tokyo Guidelines for acute cholecystitis?#

A diagnostic framework plus a severity grade. Diagnosis needs local signs of inflammation (A) and systemic signs (B) for suspicion, with characteristic imaging (C) required to make it definite. Severity is graded I to III.

What defines Grade II acute cholecystitis?#

Any ONE of four criteria, in the absence of organ dysfunction: white cell count above 18,000/mm³, a palpable tender mass in the right upper quadrant, symptoms lasting more than 72 hours, or marked local inflammation such as gangrenous or emphysematous cholecystitis, pericholecystic or hepatic abscess, or biliary peritonitis.

What defines Grade III acute cholecystitis?#

Dysfunction of any one of six organ systems: cardiovascular (dopamine ≥ 5 µg/kg/min or any noradrenaline), neurological (decreased consciousness), respiratory (PaO₂/FiO₂ below 300), renal (oliguria or creatinine above 2.0 mg/dL), hepatic (PT-INR above 1.5), or haematological (platelets below 100,000/mm³). These are identical to the cholangitis Grade III thresholds.

How do the cholecystitis and cholangitis Tokyo criteria differ?#

In three ways that matter. Cholecystitis needs imaging for a definite diagnosis, while cholangitis allows cholestasis and imaging to be interchangeable for suspicion. Cholecystitis Grade II needs one of four criteria; cholangitis needs two of five. And the Grade II white cell threshold is 18,000/mm³ for cholecystitis against 12,000/mm³ for cholangitis. Only Grade III is identical.

Why does symptom duration over 72 hours make it Grade II?#

Because the longer the gallbladder has been inflamed, the more the tissue planes are obliterated and the harder and more hazardous the dissection becomes. The Grade II criteria are as much a prediction of operative difficulty as a measure of how unwell the patient is, which is why a history item sits alongside laboratory and pathological ones.

Should Grade I cholecystitis be operated on during the same admission?#

Yes, in a fit patient. Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy during the index admission is preferred over a deferred interval operation, which is what the TG18 management flowchart supports.

When is percutaneous cholecystostomy used instead of surgery?#

Primarily in patients who are unfit for surgery, most often at Grade III or in Grade II patients with significant comorbidity. TG18 explicitly permits either emergency cholecystectomy or cholecystostomy at Grade III, decided by the patient's fitness and the expertise available. Where a drain is used, the definitive operation should still be planned rather than treating the drain as the endpoint.

Do gallstones on ultrasound confirm acute cholecystitis?#

No. Gallstones are common and often incidental, and gallbladder wall thickening occurs in ascites, heart failure, hepatitis and hypoalbuminaemia without cholecystitis. Imaging is one of three required categories — a local sign and a systemic inflammatory sign are needed alongside it.

Related calculators

  • Tokyo Guidelines — Cholangitis — TG18 diagnosis and severity grade for acute cholangitis
  • Biliary Pain (Rome IV) — Rome IV — defining biliary-type pain before intervention
  • Revised Atlanta Classification — Acute pancreatitis severity — mild, moderately severe, severe
  • BISAP Score — Bedside index for severity of pancreatitis
  • Glasgow-Imrie Criteria — Acute pancreatitis severity — the PANCREAS criteria
  • Functional Pancreatic SOD — Rome IV — pancreatic sphincter of Oddi disorder

References

Original / primary reference

  1. Yokoe M, Hata J, Takada T, et al. Tokyo Guidelines 2018: diagnostic criteria and severity grading of acute cholecystitis (with videos). J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2018;25(1):41-54.

Management

  1. Okamoto K, Suzuki K, Takada T, et al. Tokyo Guidelines 2018: flowchart for the management of acute cholecystitis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2018;25(1):55-72.
  2. Wakabayashi G, Iwashita Y, Hibi T, et al. Tokyo Guidelines 2018: surgical management of acute cholecystitis: safe steps in laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2018;25(1):73-86.
  3. Gomi H, Solomkin JS, Schlossberg D, et al. Tokyo Guidelines 2018: antimicrobial therapy for acute cholangitis and cholecystitis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2018;25(1):3-16.

Last updated August 1, 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.