Table 4.

Different DIC scoring systems

	JMHW			ISTH			JAAM
Underlying disease	Absent	0	Underlying disease	Required		Underlying disease	Required
	Present	1
Clinical presentation	No bleeding	0				Clinical presentation	No SIRS	0
	Bleeding	1*					SIRS	1
	No organ failure	0
	Organ failure	1
Platelet counts	>120	0	Platelet counts	>100	0	Platelet counts	≥120	0
	120≥ and >80	1*		100> and >50	1		120> and ≥80, or 30% reduction in 24 h	1
	80≥ and >50	2*		<50	2		80>, or 50% reduction in 24 h	2
	≤50	3*
FDP	<10	0	Fibrin-related marker	Normal	0	FDP	< 10	0
	10≤ and <20	1	(e.g., soluble fibrin monomer, FDP)				10≤ and <25	1
	20≤ and <40	2		Moderate increase	2		25≤	2
	>40	3		Strong increase	3
Fibrinogen	>1.5	0	Fibrinogen	> 1.0	0
	1.5≥ and >1.0	1		< 1.0	1
	≤ 1.0	2
PT ratio	<1.25	0	Prolonged prothrombin time	< 3.0 s	0	PT ratio	<1.20	0
	1.25≤ and <1.67	1		3.0< and <6.0	1		≥1.2	1
	≥1.67	2		> 6.0	2
Diagnosis		≥ 7	Diagnosis		≥ 5	Diagnosis		≥ 4

Development of antithrombotics for sepsis patients with DIC was significantly hindered due to lack of consensus for diagnostic criteria for DIC. The three scoring systems shown are from the Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare (JMHW), the subcommittee on DIC with the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH), and the Japanese Association of Acute Medicine (JAAM). The JMHW scoring system was the first to standardize the diagnosis of DIC. The ISTH system has the greatest specificity, is simplest to use, and has been validated in multiple clinical trials. The JAAM system is most sensitive for diagnosis of early DIC.

^*If hematologic malignancy, 0 point for Bleeding and Platelet and add 3 points to the total score