INTRODUCTION

Although the Rome criteria were created primarily for research purposes, it was an important question whether the Rome criteria can distinguish organic dyspepsia from functional dyspepsia (FD). We evaluated the accuracy of the Rome IV criteria in identifying patients with FD and compared the differences between the Rome IV, Rome III, and potential Asia criteria in identifying patients with FD.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we analyzed data from patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria from March 2018 to January 2019 at 2 tertiary hospitals.

RESULTS

A total of 600 patients were enrolled in this study, including 381 individuals met the Rome IV criteria for FD, 438 individuals met the Rome III criteria for FD, and 525 individuals met the potential Asia criteria for FD. The Rome IV criteria identified patients with FD with 67.3% sensitivity and 38.4% specificity, and the positive and negative likelihood ratios of FD identified by Rome IV criteria were 1.09 (95% confidence interval 0.97-1.24) and 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.67-1.08), respectively. There was no significant difference in the area under Rome IV, Rome III, or potential Asia criteria receiver operating characteristic curves in identifying FD (P > 0.05).

DISCUSSION

The Rome IV criteria were no better than the Rome III or potential Asia criteria in identifying FD and were not helpful in identifying patients with FD. Hence, although the Rome criteria remain useful for defining patients with FD for inclusion into clinical treatment trials, they should not be used for diagnosing FD.