Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • News & Views
  • Published:

Diagnosis

Rome IV criteria for FGIDs — an improvement or more of the same?

Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology volume 13, pages 501–502 (2016)Cite this article

Subjects

Symptom-based diagnostic criteria have been criticized for being overly complex and performing modestly in differentiating organic from functional gastrointestinal diseases. The new Rome IV criteria now supersede Rome III. In general, these minor amendments are unlikely to lead to substantial improvement in accuracy and use in routine clinical care. Is a different approach required in future?

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1

References

  1. Manning, A. P. et al. Towards positive diagnosis of the irritable bowel. Br. Med. J. 2, 653–654 (1978).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Drossman, D. A. et al. Identification of sub-groups of functional gastrointestinal disorders. Gastroenterol. Int. 3, 159–172 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Mearin, F. et al. Bowel disorders. Gastroenterology 150, 1393–1407 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Stanghellini, V. et al. Gastroduodenal disorders. Gastroenterology 150, 1380–1392 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ford, A. C. et al. Validation of the Rome III criteria for the diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome in secondary care. Gastroenterology 145, 1262–1270.e1 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ford, A. C. et al. The Rome III criteria for the diagnosis of functional dyspepsia in secondary care are not superior to previous definitions. Gastroenterology 146, 932–935 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ford, A. C. et al. Characteristics of functional bowel disorder patients: a cross-sectional survey using the Rome III criteria. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 39, 312–321 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fang, Y. -J. et al. Distinct aetiopathogenesis in subgroups of functional dyspepsia according to the Rome III criteria. Gut 64, 1517–1528 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Palsson, O. S. et al. Rome IV diagnostic questionnaires and tables for investigators and clinicians. Gastroenterology http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2016.02.014 (2016).

  10. Sood, R. et al. Systematic review with meta-analysis: the accuracy of diagnosing irritable bowel syndrome with symptoms, biomarkers and/or psychological markers. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 42, 491–503 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leeds Gastroenterology Institute, 4th floor, Bexley Wing, St. James's University Hospital, Beckett Street, Leeds, LS9 7TF, UK and the Leeds Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.,

    Ruchit Sood & Alexander C. Ford

Authors
  1. Ruchit Sood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexander C. Ford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander C. Ford.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information S1 (table)

Rome III and Rome IV diagnostic criteria for IBS, functional constipation and functional dyspepsia. (PDF 156 kb)

PowerPoint slides

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sood, R., Ford, A. Rome IV criteria for FGIDs — an improvement or more of the same?. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 13, 501–502 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrgastro.2016.110

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrgastro.2016.110

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing