Resources
The Rome criteria, established and periodically updated by the international Rome Foundation, provide the global standard for symptom-based diagnosis of FGIDs (disorders of the gut-brain interaction). This standardization is paramount for ensuring diagnostic consistency and upholding the scientific rigor of clinical research worldwide. The latest iteration, Rome IV, published in 2016, continues this tradition of refinement.
In the specialized realm of clinical research focused on functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs), the progression from the Rome II to the Rome III, and most recently to the Rome IV criteria, represents a significant journey of scientific refinement. This evolution, steered by a growing body of evidence, has fundamentally reshaped the diagnosis of these complex gut-brain interactions, thereby influencing the design of clinical trials, the interpretation of research, and the comparability of findings across different eras of study.
Key Differences in Diagnostic Criteria: An Expanded View
The transition from Rome II (1999) to Rome III (2006) and subsequently to Rome IV (2016) involved substantial revisions aimed at enhancing the specificity, clinical relevance, and pathophysiological basis of the diagnostic criteria. Here is a comparative overview of the key changes for several major FGIDs across all three versions.
Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS)
The criteria for IBS have become progressively more stringent to better differentiate it from other disorders and the general population.
| Feature | Rome II Criteria (1999) | Rome III Criteria (2006) | Rome IV Criteria (2016) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Core Symptom | Abdominal discomfort or pain | Recurrent abdominal pain or discomfort | Recurrent abdominal pain |
| Symptom Frequency | At least 12 weeks (need not be consecutive) in the preceding 12 months | At least 3 days per month in the last 3 months | On average, at least 1 day per week in the last 3 months |
| Symptom Onset | Not specified | Symptom onset at least 6 months before diagnosis | Symptom onset at least 6 months before diagnosis |
| Associated Symptoms | Two of the following three features: 1) Relieved with defecation; and/or 2) Onset associated with a change in frequency of stool; and/or 3) Onset associated with a change in form (appearance) of stool. | Two or more of the following: 1) Improvement with defecation; 2) Onset associated with a change in frequency of stool; 3) Onset associated with a change in form (appearance) of stool. | Two or more of the following: 1) Related to defecation; 2) Associated with a change in frequency of stool; 3) Associated with a change in form (appearance) of stool. |
| Subtyping | Based on the predominant stool pattern (diarrhea-predominant, constipation-predominant, or alternating). | More formally defined based on the Bristol Stool Form Scale to classify into IBS with constipation (IBS-C), IBS with diarrhea (IBS-D), mixed IBS (IBS-M), and unsubtyped IBS (IBS-U). | Subtyping is based on the proportion of days with symptomatic stools (using the Bristol Stool Form Scale), which reduces the number of “unsubtyped” patients. The subtypes remain IBS-C, IBS-D, IBS-M, and IBS-U. |
Key Rationale for Rome IV Changes: The removal of “discomfort” as a core symptom was due to its ambiguous translation and interpretation across different cultures. The increased pain frequency aims to increase the specificity of the diagnosis, distinguishing it more clearly from individuals with occasional abdominal symptoms. The change to pain being “related to defecation” acknowledges that for some, pain may worsen with a bowel movement.
Functional Dyspepsia
The classification of functional dyspepsia has shifted from symptom-based subtypes to a more pathophysiologically grounded approach.
| Feature | Rome II Criteria (1999) | Rome III Criteria (2006) | Rome IV Criteria (2016) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Core Concept | Persistent or recurrent pain or discomfort centered in the upper abdomen. | One or more of the following: bothersome postprandial fullness, early satiation, epigastric pain, or epigastric burning. | One or more of the following: bothersome postprandial fullness, early satiation, epigastric pain, or epigastric burning. Criteria should be fulfilled for the last 3 months with symptom onset at least 6 months before diagnosis. |
| Subtyping | - Ulcer-like dyspepsia (predominantly pain) - Dysmotility-like dyspepsia (predominantly discomfort) - Unspecified dyspepsia | Eliminated the previous subtypes and introduced two new categories: - Postprandial Distress Syndrome (PDS): Characterized by bothersome postprandial fullness and/or early satiation. - Epigastric Pain Syndrome (EPS): Characterized by epigastric pain or burning. | The subtypes of Postprandial Distress Syndrome (PDS) and Epigastric Pain Syndrome (EPS) are maintained. However, Rome IV acknowledges the potential for overlap between these syndromes. A key change is that symptoms must be “bothersome” (i.e., severe enough to interfere with usual activities). |
| Symptom Duration | At least 12 weeks in the past year. | Symptoms present for the last 3 months with onset at least 6 months before diagnosis. | Symptoms present for the last 3 months with onset at least 6 months before diagnosis. |
Key Rationale for Rome IV Changes: While maintaining the PDS and EPS subtypes, Rome IV emphasizes the “bothersome” nature of the symptoms to ensure clinical significance. It also formally recognizes that patients can experience an overlap of PDS and EPS symptoms.
Functional Constipation
The criteria for functional constipation have been refined to improve diagnostic precision and differentiate it more clearly from IBS-C.
| Feature | Rome II Criteria (1999) | Rome III Criteria (2006) | Rome IV Criteria (2016) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Symptom Criteria | Two or more of the following for at least 12 weeks in the preceding 12 months: - Straining in >25% of defecations - Lumpy or hard stools in >25% of defecations - Sensation of incomplete evacuation in >25% of defecations - Sensation of anorectal obstruction/blockage in >25% of defecations - Manual maneuvers to facilitate >25% of defecations - <3 defecations per week | Two or more of the following must be present for the last 3 months with symptom onset at least 6 months prior to diagnosis: - Straining during at least 25% of defecations - Lumpy or hard stools in at least 25% of defecations - Sensation of incomplete evacuation for at least 25% of defecations - Sensation of anorectal obstruction/blockage for at least 25% of defecations - Manual maneuvers to facilitate at least 25% of defecations - Fewer than three defecations per week | The core symptom criteria remain largely the same, requiring at least two of the listed symptoms for the last 3 months with onset at least 6 months before diagnosis. The emphasis on the Bristol Stool Form Scale for defining hard stools (Type 1 and 2) is maintained. |
| Exclusionary Clause | Loose stools are not present, and there are insufficient criteria for IBS. | Loose stools are rarely present without the use of laxatives, and there are insufficient criteria for IBS. | Insufficient criteria for IBS. Abdominal pain is not a predominant symptom, although it may be present. |
Key Rationale for Rome IV Changes: The main refinement in Rome IV is the clearer distinction from IBS-C. While abdominal pain can be a feature of functional constipation, it is not a predominant symptom as it is in IBS. This helps to create more homogenous patient groups for research.
The Overarching Impact on Clinical Research
The evolution through Rome II, III, and IV has had far-reaching implications for the field of gastroenterology research:
-
Prevalence and Epidemiology: Each iteration of the criteria has led to changes in the estimated prevalence of FGIDs. The more stringent criteria of Rome IV, for example, have generally resulted in lower prevalence rates for IBS compared to Rome III.
-
Patient Selection and Study Design: Researchers must meticulously align their study protocols with the specific Rome criteria they are using. This shift means that a patient who qualified for an IBS study under Rome III might not under Rome IV, leading to the selection of potentially different patient populations with varying symptom severity.
-
Comparability of Historical Data: The progressive changes pose a significant challenge when comparing findings from studies conducted under different versions of the criteria. A direct comparison of a Rome III study with a Rome IV study is often not feasible without careful consideration of the diagnostic shifts. Consequently, researchers must be explicit about the criteria used.
-
Advancing Pathophysiological Understanding: The refinements in the criteria, particularly in Rome IV, are designed to create more uniform patient cohorts. This homogeneity is crucial for research aimed at uncovering the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms of these complex disorders, such as alterations in the gut microbiome, visceral hypersensitivity, and gut-brain axis dysregulation.
In essence, the journey from Rome II to Rome IV reflects the dynamic nature of medical science. Each update, built upon a growing foundation of research, has provided clinicians and researchers with more precise tools to diagnose and study functional gastrointestinal disorders, ultimately paving the way for more targeted and effective treatments.