BACKGROUND: The Rome criteria have been introduced to create order in the heterogeneity of functional dyspepsia. The applicability of these symptom-based classification systems remains controversial. GOAL: To evaluate the successive Rome criteria for functional dyspepsia in a large pool of patients with endoscopically verified functional dyspepsia. STUDY: Patients referred to a secondary care district hospital were asked to fill out a questionnaire on gastrointestinal symptoms 2 weeks before upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Patients were classified according to the Rome I, II, and III criteria for functional dyspepsia. RESULTS: Nine hundred and twelve (70%) patients had no organic disorder explaining their symptoms. According to the Rome I, II, and III criteria, 371 (41%), 735 (81%), and 551 (60%) of these patients had functional dyspepsia, respectively. Twenty-five percent of patients had functional dyspepsia according to all 3 Rome criteria, whereas 15% was not classifiable at all. Forty-four percent and 42% of the patients, respectively, had epigastric pain syndrome and postprandial distress syndrome according to the Rome III criteria; however, 26% of all patients met both criteria and 40% was not classified at all. CONCLUSIONS: The symptom-based Rome classification of functional dyspepsia does not lead to an easily applicable and consistent system that is useful in clinical practice or scientific research.
BACKGROUND: The Rome criteria have been introduced to create order in the heterogeneity of functional dyspepsia. The applicability of these symptom-based classification systems remains controversial. GOAL: To evaluate the successive Rome criteria for functional dyspepsia in a large pool of patients with endoscopically verified functional dyspepsia. STUDY: Patients referred to a secondary care district hospital were asked to fill out a questionnaire on gastrointestinal symptoms 2 weeks before upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Patients were classified according to the Rome I, II, and III criteria for functional dyspepsia. RESULTS: Nine hundred and twelve (70%) patients had no organic disorder explaining their symptoms. According to the Rome I, II, and III criteria, 371 (41%), 735 (81%), and 551 (60%) of these patients had functional dyspepsia, respectively. Twenty-five percent of patients had functional dyspepsia according to all 3 Rome criteria, whereas 15% was not classifiable at all. Forty-four percent and 42% of the patients, respectively, had epigastric pain syndrome and postprandial distress syndrome according to the Rome III criteria; however, 26% of all patients met both criteria and 40% was not classified at all. CONCLUSIONS: The symptom-based Rome classification of functional dyspepsia does not lead to an easily applicable and consistent system that is useful in clinical practice or scientific research.
Authors: H P Parkman; M Camilleri; G Farrugia; R W McCallum; A E Bharucha; E A Mayer; J F Tack; R Spiller; M Horowitz; A I Vinik; J J Galligan; P J Pasricha; B Kuo; L A Szarka; L Marciani; K Jones; C R Parrish; P Sandroni; T Abell; T Ordog; W Hasler; K L Koch; K Sanders; N J Norton; F Hamilton Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2009-12-09 Impact factor: 3.598
Authors: Javier P Gisbert; Xavier Calvet; Juan Ferrándiz; Juan Mascort; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Mercè Marzo Journal: Aten Primaria Date: 2012-10-01 Impact factor: 1.137
Authors: H Vanheel; F Carbone; L Valvekens; M Simren; H Tornblom; T Vanuytsel; L Van Oudenhove; J Tack Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-12-13 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Javier P Gisbert; Xavier Calvet Calvo; Juan Ferrándiz Santos; Juan José Mascort Roca; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Mercè Marzo Castillejo Journal: Aten Primaria Date: 2012-10-22 Impact factor: 1.137
Authors: Susrutha Puthanmadhom Narayanan; David R Linden; Stephanie A Peters; Anshuman Desai; Saatchi Kuwelker; Daniel O'Brien; Thomas J Smyrk; Rondell P Graham; Madhusudan Grover; Adil E Bharucha Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2020-08-09 Impact factor: 3.598