Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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.


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

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 options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1


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

    CAS  Article  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).

    CAS  Article  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 (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).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


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

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).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

Further reading


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