. 2023 Feb 17;77(3):1036–1065. doi: 10.1002/hep.32689

TABLE 5. Data fields in the RUCAM, CDS, and RECAM causality assessment instruments.

Data field	Updated RUCAM108 score	CDS109 score	RECAM113 score
1. Chronology (latency)
1a. Drug start to liver injury onset^a	+1 to +2	+1 to +3	−6 to +4
1b. Drug discontinuation to liver injury onset^a	+1	−3 to +3	−6 to 0
2. Dechallenge^b	−2 to +3 hepatocellular; 0 to +2 cholestatic/mixed	0 to +3	−6 to +4
3. Competing causes of liver injury	−3 to +2	−3 to +3	−6 to 0
4. Rechallenge	0 to +3	+3	0 or + 6
5. Track record of drug/HDS hepatotoxicity	0 to +2	−3 to +2	0 to +3
Risk factors	0 to +1	N/A	N/A^c
6. Concomitant medication	−3 to 0	N/A	N/A^d
7. Extrahepatic manifestations	–	0 to +3	–
Range of scores	−9 to +14	−6 to 17	−6 to +20
DILI likelihood categories
Definite	≥ 9	> 17	Highly likely/high probable ≥ 8
Probable	6–8	14–17	4–7
Possible	3–5	10–13	−3 to +3
Unlikely	1–2	6–9	Unlikely/excluded, < −4
Excluded	≤ 0	≤ 6	Unlikely/excluded, < −4

Note: Only scores from the updated RUCAM are shown and are composites derived from hepatocellular and mixed/cholestatic categories.110

Abbreviations: CDS, clinical diagnostic scale; NA, not applicable; RECAM, Revised Electronic Causality Assessment Method; RUCAM, Roussel‐Uclaf Causality Assessment Method.

^{^a}

Only 1 of those 2 (i.e., only 1a or 1b) is counted.

^{^b}

Stratified by hepatocellular versus mixed/cholestatic in early version.

^{^c}

In RECAM, risk factors were not assigned scores.

^{^d}

RECAM was developed only for single drug cases and does not account for concomitant medications.