4.1 Review

How to use Rome IV criteria in the evaluation of esophageal disorders

Journal

CURRENT OPINION IN GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 34, Issue 4, Pages 258-265

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MOG.0000000000000443

Keywords

dysphagia; functional chest pain; functional esophageal disorders; functional heartburn; globus; reflux hypersensitivity; Rome IV

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose of review In 2016, the Rome IV process and criteria were published. They provide a system to standardize patient diagnostic requirements for clinical studies and pharmaceutical trials on functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs), which are now called disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI). Although the Rome criteria have limitations in clinical practice, an understanding of the criteria can help clinicians to manage symptoms in patients with DGBI, and with organic diseases as well. Recent findings In this report, the Rome IV criteria for esophageal DGBI, the updated algorithms for esophageal symptoms, and the multidimensional clinical profile (MDCP) are reviewed. Summary The esophageal DGBI comprise functional esophageal chest pain, functional heartburn, globus, functional dysphagia, and the newly introduced reflux hypersensitivity. They are characterized by the presence of chronic symptoms attributed to the esophagus without evidence of esophageal structural, inflammatory, or motility abnormalities. Also, Rome IV suggests for the first time the possibility that functional heartburn or reflux hypersensitivity might overlap with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Accordingly, testing with endoscopy and biopsies, esophageal pH +/- impedance monitoring and high-resolution esophageal manometry are necessary to establish esophageal DGBI diagnoses. Algorithms aid in this diagnostic process, and the MDCP that captures the full dimension of each patient's presentation is helpful in planning personalized treatment regimens.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available