The Rome III Criteria for the Diagnosis of Functional Dyspepsia in Secondary Care Are Not Superior to Previous Definitions

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Although the Rome III criteria for functional dyspepsia were defined 7 years ago, they have yet to be validated in a rigorous study. We addressed this issue in a secondary-care population. METHODS: We analyzed complete symptom, upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, and histology data from 1452 consecutive adult patients with GI symptoms at 2 hospitals in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Assessors were blinded to symptom status. Individuals with normal upper GI endoscopy and histopathology findings from analyses of biopsy specimens were classified as having no organic GI disease. The reference standard used to define the presence of true functional dyspepsia was epigastric pain, early satiety or postprandial fullness, and no organic GI disease. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were calculated. RESULTS: Of the 1452 patients, 722 (49.7%) met the Rome III criteria for functional dyspepsia. Endoscopy showed organic GI disease in 170 patients (23.5%) who met the Rome III criteria. The Rome III criteria identified patients with functional dyspepsia with 60.7% sensitivity, 68.7% specificity, a positive LR of 1.94 (95% CI, 1.69-2.22), and a negative LR of 0.57 (95% CI, 0.52-0.63). In contrast, the Rome II criteria identified patients with functional dyspepsia with 71.4% sensitivity, 55.6% specificity, a positive LR of 1.61 (95% CI, 1.45-1.78), and a negative LR of 0.51 (95% CI, 0.45-0.58). The area under a receiver operating characteristics curves did not differ significantly for any of the diagnostic criteria for functional dyspepsia. CONCLUSIONS: In a validation study of 1452 patients with GI symptoms, the Rome III criteria performed only modestly in identifying those with functional dyspepsia, and were not significantly superior to previous definitions

Validation of the Rome III criteria for the diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome in secondary care

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There are few validation studies of existing diagnostic criteria for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). We conducted a validation study of the Rome and Manning criteria in secondary care. METHODS: We collected complete symptom, colonoscopy, and histology data from 1848 consecutive adult patients with gastrointestinal symptoms at 2 hospitals in Hamilton, Ontario; the subjects then underwent colonoscopy. Assessors were blinded to symptom status. Individuals with normal colonoscopy and histopathology results, and no evidence of celiac disease, were classified as having no organic gastrointestinal disease. The reference standard used to define the presence of true IBS was lower abdominal pain or discomfort in association with a change in bowel habit and no organic gastrointestinal disease. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios, with 95% confidence intervals, were calculated for each diagnostic criteria. RESULTS: In identifying patients with IBS, sensitivities of the criteria ranged from 61.9% (Manning) to 95.8% (Rome I), and specificities from 70.6% (Rome I) to 81.8% (Manning). Positive likelihood ratios ranged from 3.19 (Rome II) to 3.39 (Manning), and negative likelihood ratios from 0.06 (Rome I) to 0.47 (Manning). The level of agreement between diagnostic criteria was greatest for Rome I and Rome II (κ = 0.95), and lowest for Manning and Rome III (κ = 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: Existing diagnostic criteria perform modestly in distinguishing IBS from organic disease. There appears to be little difference in terms of accuracy. More accurate ways of diagnosing IBS, avoiding the need for investigation, are required