TY - JOUR
T1 - Functional dyspepsia
T2 - Not all roads seem to lead to Rome
AU - Van Kerkhoven, Lieke A.S.
AU - Laheij, Robert J.F.
AU - Meineche-Schmidt, Villy
AU - Veldhuyzen-Van Zanten, Sander J.
AU - De Wit, Niek J.
AU - Jansen, Jan B.M.J.
PY - 2009/2
Y1 - 2009/2
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Classification
KW - Dyspepsia
KW - Epidemiology
KW - Functional gastrointestinal disorders
KW - Gastrointestinal diseases
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=64749116944&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/MCG.0b013e31815591f7
DO - 10.1097/MCG.0b013e31815591f7
M3 - Article
C2 - 18719513
SN - 0192-0790
VL - 43
SP - 118
EP - 122
JO - Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology
JF - Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology
IS - 2
ER -