GastroAGI Logo
OverviewBlogsAbout
Trending TopicsDaily BriefConference

116 calculators match

Most used

21
MELD-NaAssesses the severity of chronic liver diseaseChild-Pugh ScoreAssesses the prognosis of chronic liver disease, mainly cirrhosisFIB-4 IndexLiver fibrosis scoring indexAPRIAST to platelet ratio — liver fibrosisMaddrey's DFAlcoholic hepatitis severityGlasgow-BlatchfordUpper GI bleed risk stratificationGAHSGlasgow alcoholic hepatitis scoreMontreal IBDIBD classification — CD & UCMayo ScoreUlcerative colitis activityBISAP ScoreBedside index for severity of pancreatitisCLIF-SOFAOrgan failure scoring in cirrhosisAlcohol ContentStandard drinks & alcohol grams calculatorAARC-ACLFAcute-on-chronic liver failure gradePELD / CR ScorePediatric end-stage liver diseaseHarvey-BradshawCrohn's disease activity indexCTSICT severity index — pancreatitisRockall ScoreGI bleed rebleeding & mortality riskCAGEAlcohol use disorder screening (4 questions)MELD 3.0Updated MELD — sex-inclusive formulaAUDIT ScoreAlcohol use disorders identification testVOCAL-Penn ScorePost-operative mortality risk in cirrhosis surgery

Liver & Cirrhosis

17
ALBI GradeAlbumin-bilirubin liver function grade in HCCUKELD ScoreUK model for end-stage liver diseaseMELD-XIMELD excluding INR — for anticoagulated patientsWest Haven CriteriaHepatic encephalopathy gradingMilan CriteriaLiver transplant eligibility in hepatocellular carcinomaLI-RADS v2018 (CT/MRI)Liver observation category from size, APHE and major featuresBCLC StagingHepatocellular carcinoma stage and treatment allocationSimplified AIH CriteriaSimplified criteria for autoimmune hepatitisRevised Original AIH ScoreIAIHG 1999 comprehensive autoimmune hepatitis scoreSAAGSerum-ascites albumin gradient — cause of ascitesR FactorHepatocellular vs cholestatic pattern in liver injuryCLIF-C ACLFMortality prediction in acute-on-chronic liver failureKing's College CriteriaTransplant criteria in acute liver failureGALAD ScoreHCC detection from gender, age, AFP-L3, AFP and DCPMetroticket 2.0AFP-adjusted up-to-seven for HCC transplant eligibilityRUCAMCausality in drug- and herb-induced liver injuryBaveno VII CriteriacACLD, CSPH and sparing screening endoscopy

Fibrosis & MASLD

8
NAFLD Fibrosis ScoreAdvanced fibrosis probability in MASLD/NAFLDBARD ScoreBMI, AST/ALT ratio, diabetes — MASLD fibrosisFatty Liver IndexPredicts hepatic steatosis from routine labsFibrotic NASH Index (FNI)At-risk NASH probability from AST, HbA1c and HDLNAFLD Activity Score (NAS)Histologic activity grade — steatosis, inflammation, ballooningMEFIB IndexMRE + FIB-4 rule for significant fibrosis (≥F2) in MASLDFAST ScoreFibroScan-AST — at-risk NASH from LSM, CAP and ASTSAFE ScoreSteatosis-Associated Fibrosis Estimator for MASLD in primary care

Pancreas & Biliary

8
Ranson's CriteriaAcute pancreatitis severity at 48 hoursGlasgow-Imrie CriteriaAcute pancreatitis severity — the PANCREAS criteriaHAPSHarmless acute pancreatitis scoreTokyo Guidelines — CholangitisTG18 diagnosis and severity grade for acute cholangitisTokyo Guidelines — CholecystitisTG18 diagnosis and severity grade for acute cholecystitisBiliary Pain (Rome IV)Rome IV — defining biliary-type pain before interventionFunctional Pancreatic SODRome IV — pancreatic sphincter of Oddi disorderRevised Atlanta ClassificationAcute pancreatitis severity — mild, moderately severe, severe

IBD

9
Truelove & Witts CriteriaAcute severe ulcerative colitis — admission decisionUCEISUlcerative colitis endoscopic index of severitySCCAISimple clinical colitis activity index — symptoms onlyCDAICrohn's disease activity index — the trial standardSES-CDEndoscopic severity in Crohn's diseasePUCAIPaediatric ulcerative colitis activity indexTravis (Oxford) CriteriaDay 3 colectomy risk in acute severe ulcerative colitisHo IndexDay 3 steroid failure risk in acute severe ulcerative colitisRutgeerts ScorePostoperative Crohn's recurrence at ileocolonoscopy

GI Bleeding

7
EVendo ScorePredicts oesophageal varices needing treatmentForrest ClassificationPeptic ulcer bleeding — rebleeding risk at endoscopyAIMS65 ScoreUpper GI bleed mortality — five bedside criteriaOakland ScoreSafe-discharge risk for acute lower GI bleedingABC ScoreAge, blood tests, comorbidities — GI bleed mortalitySarin ClassificationEndoscopic classification of gastric varicesEGUS (Gastric Ulcer)Malignancy risk in a gastric ulcer, and who needs repeat endoscopy

Alcohol

2
ABIC ScoreAge, bilirubin, INR, creatinine — alcoholic hepatitisLille ModelSteroid response at day 7 in alcoholic hepatitis

Upper GI

4
Chicago Classification v4.0Oesophageal motility pattern from high-resolution manometryLA Classification (Oesophagitis)Los Angeles grade A–D for erosive oesophagitisPrague C & M CriteriaCircumferential and maximal extent of Barrett's oesophagusEREFS (Eosinophilic Oesophagitis)Endoscopic reference score — oedema, rings, exudates, furrows, stricture

Colorectal

3
Boston Bowel Prep ScaleColonoscopy preparation adequacy by segmentStool Osmotic GapOsmotic vs secretory diarrhoea from stool electrolytesATLAS Score (C. difficile)Predicted response to therapy in Clostridioides difficile infection

Functional GI

37
Bristol Stool ScaleStool form types 1–7 and colonic transitRome IV Criteria for IBSIrritable bowel syndrome diagnosis and subtypeFunctional ConstipationRome IV — two of six items, IBS excludedOpioid-Induced ConstipationRome IV — constipation tied to opioid therapyFunctional DiarrhoeaRome IV — loose stools without predominant painFunctional Bloating / DistensionRome IV — bloating without other bowel disorder criteriaUnspecified Functional Bowel DisorderRome IV — bowel symptoms fitting no other categoryCentrally Mediated Abdominal Pain (CAPS)Rome IV — continuous pain unrelated to gut eventsNarcotic Bowel SyndromeRome IV — opioid-induced hyperalgesia of the gutFaecal Incontinence (Rome IV)Rome IV — the criteria, and why nobody is askedFunctional Anorectal PainLevator ani, unspecified pain and proctalgia fugaxFunctional Defecation DisordersRome IV — dyssynergia and inadequate propulsionInfant RegurgitationRome IV — the happy spitter, and the alarm features that rule it outInfant ColicRome IV — recurrent unexplained crying in a well infant under 5 monthsInfant DyscheziaRome IV — straining before a soft stool, and why not to intervenePaediatric Functional ConstipationRome IV — two of six over one month, with overflow soiling as a criterionToddler's DiarrhoeaRome IV functional diarrhoea of childhood — painless, thriving childPaediatric Cyclic Vomiting SyndromeRome IV — both age bands, with different criteria for eachPaediatric Rumination SyndromeRome IV — infant and child/adolescent criteriaFunctional Nausea & Vomiting (Children)Rome IV — two separate disorders that can be met togetherAerophagiaRome IV — distension that increases through the dayPaediatric Functional DyspepsiaRome IV — four times a month, with PDS and EPS subtypingPaediatric Irritable Bowel SyndromeRome IV — plus the constipation clause clinicians missAbdominal MigraineRome IV — stereotypical incapacitating episodes weeks apartFunctional Abdominal Pain — NOSRome IV — the residual category, reached after the other threeNonretentive Faecal IncontinenceRome IV — soiling without retention, where laxatives make it worseFunctional DyspepsiaRome IV — with PDS and EPS subtypingRumination SyndromeRome IV — effortless regurgitation without retchingCyclic Vomiting SyndromeRome IV — stereotypical episodic vomitingCannabinoid HyperemesisRome IV — CVS pattern relieved by cannabis cessationChronic Nausea & VomitingRome IV — chronic nausea and vomiting syndromeBelching DisordersRome IV — supragastric vs gastric belchingFunctional HeartburnRome IV — heartburn with normal acid exposureReflux HypersensitivityRome IV — normal acid exposure, positive symptom associationFunctional Chest PainRome IV — non-cardiac, non-reflux chest painGlobusRome IV — painless lump-in-throat sensationFunctional DysphagiaRome IV — dysphagia with normal endoscopy and manometry
  1. Calculators
  2. /
  3. Paediatric Rumination Syndrome
Functional GI

Paediatric Rumination Syndrome

Rome IV — infant and child/adolescent criteria

Rome IV writes separate criteria for infants (G2) and for children and adolescents (H1c). The infant version requires a supportive-feature count; the older version does not.

Two months in both paediatric bands, against three in the adult criteria.

Both parts matter: onset soon after eating, and complete absence during sleep.

The discriminating criterion. Retching means vomiting, not rumination.

Rome IV names the eating-disorder exclusion explicitly in the child and adolescent criteria — the overlap in this age group is real and easily missed.

Both age bands require two months rather than the adult three, and both hinge on the absence of retching — that single feature is what separates rumination from vomiting at the bedside.

When to use
Use it in any child who regurgitates repeatedly after meals and has already failed acid suppression — that failure is a diagnostic clue rather than a reason to escalate the dose. In infants it is worth considering when regurgitation looks purposeful, is preceded by visible posturing or tongue movements, and stops as soon as someone picks the baby up. In adolescents it is worth considering whenever postprandial regurgitation has been labelled refractory reflux or gastroparesis, which is where most of these patients spend several years first.
Why use it
Because the diagnosis is almost never made early, and everything about it is treatable once it is. Children are commonly investigated for years with pH studies, gastric emptying scans and endoscopies, and treated with escalating acid suppression and prokinetics that cannot work, because the mechanism is a learned unconscious contraction of the abdominal wall rather than a motility failure. The effective treatment — diaphragmatic breathing after meals — is simple, non-pharmacological, and works in most patients who engage with it. The second reason is safeguarding: in infants, rumination is associated with understimulation and neurodevelopmental disability, and in adolescents it overlaps with eating disorders. Both require a response the gastroenterological work-up will not produce.
Formula, evidence and interpretation

About the Rome IV Criteria for Paediatric Rumination Syndrome

Two months in both age bands, and in both the diagnosis turns on the absence of retching. In children and adolescents (H1c): repeated regurgitation and rechewing or expulsion of food that begins soon after a meal and does not occur during sleep; not preceded by retching; and other conditions excluded, with an eating disorder specifically ruled out. In infants (G2) the criteria are observational instead: repetitive contractions of the abdominal muscles, diaphragm and tongue; effortless regurgitation of gastric contents that are expelled or rechewed and reswallowed; and three or more of four supportive features — onset between three and eight months, no response to reflux management, no signs of distress, and absence during sleep or when the infant is engaged with someone.

On this page

  • Formula
  • Interpreting the result
  • Inputs
  • What it returns
  • How it is calculated
  • Facts & figures
  • Evidence
  • How it compares
  • Pearls & pitfalls
  • Critical actions
  • Why it exists
  • About the creator
  • Limitations
  • If you are the patient
  • FAQ
  • Related calculators
  • References

Formula

G2 (infant) = ≥ 2 months AND repetitive contractions of abdominal muscles, diaphragm and tongue AND effortless regurgitation, expelled or rechewed and reswallowed AND ≥ 3 of 4: onset 3–8 months; no response to GERD management; no signs of distress; absent during sleep and interaction H1c (child / adolescent) = ≥ 2 months AND repeated regurgitation and rechewing or expulsion beginning soon after a meal and not during sleep AND not preceded by retching AND other conditions excluded and eating disorder ruled out
Not preceded by retching
The single feature that separates rumination from vomiting at the bedside, and the one question most likely to make the diagnosis without any test.
Absence during sleep
Required in the older band and a supportive feature in infants. Rumination is a behaviour, and behaviours stop when the person is asleep; reflux does not.
No response to reflux management
Listed by Rome IV as a supportive feature in infants. Failure of acid suppression is diagnostic information rather than a reason to increase the dose.
  • Two months in both paediatric bands, against three months in the adult criteria.
  • In infants the criteria describe an observable behaviour; in older children they rely on the child's account.
  • The eating-disorder exclusion is named only in the child and adolescent criteria, where the overlap matters most.
  • Rome IV places this in the nausea and vomiting chapter despite it being neither — the classification follows presentation rather than mechanism.

Interpreting the result

Meeting criteria should redirect management entirely. Stop acid suppression and prokinetics, which do not work here and delay the right treatment. Teach diaphragmatic breathing after meals: this is first-line, it is effective in the majority who engage with it, and it works by making the abdominal wall contraction that produces the regurgitation physically incompatible with the breathing pattern being practised. It is taught rather than prescribed, and outcome depends on repetition, so a single explanation in clinic is rarely enough — involve a therapist or specialist nurse where available. In adolescents, screen for an eating disorder and for psychosocial stressors, both of which are common and both of which change the care plan. In infants, assess the caregiving environment directly: increased holding, interaction and stimulation are part of the treatment, and where there is neurodevelopmental disability the behaviour may need a broader behavioural approach. Where criteria are not met, retching before the event points to vomiting rather than rumination, and regurgitation occurring during sleep is not rumination at all.

ScoreBandWhat it meansAction
Criteria met — H1c (child / adolescent)Paediatric rumination syndromePostprandial effortless regurgitation without retching, over at least two monthsStop acid suppression; teach diaphragmatic breathing; screen for eating disorder and psychosocial stressors
Criteria met — G2 (infant)Infant rumination syndromeObservable repetitive contractions with effortless regurgitation and three or more supportive featuresAssess the caregiving environment and developmental status; increase interaction and stimulation
Criteria not met — retching presentThis is vomitingRetching precedes the eventAssess as vomiting — consider cyclic vomiting, functional vomiting, obstruction or a metabolic cause
Criteria not met — occurs during sleepNot a behavioural patternRegurgitation happens while asleepConsider gastro-oesophageal reflux disease rather than rumination

What the Paediatric Rumination Syndrome needs (8 inputs)

Age band — infant (G2) or child/adolescent (H1c)
Rome IV writes separate criteria. The infant version is observational and includes a supportive-feature count; the older version relies on the child's description and adds an eating-disorder exclusion.
Criteria fulfilled for at least 2 months
Two months in both paediatric bands, against three months in the adult criteria — consistent with the shorter windows used throughout the paediatric chapters.
Repetitive contractions of the abdominal muscles, diaphragm and tongue
Infant criterion. The behaviour itself is the finding — visible posturing, arching, and tongue thrusting immediately before the regurgitation.
Effortless regurgitation of gastric contents, expelled or rechewed and reswallowed
Infant criterion. Effortless is the operative word; anything requiring effort is vomiting.
Three or more of: onset between 3 and 8 months; no response to reflux management; no signs of distress; absent during sleep and when interacting with others
Infant criterion. The last is the most distinctive — rumination stops the moment the infant is engaged, and never occurs during sleep.
Repeated regurgitation and rechewing or expulsion beginning soon after a meal, not during sleep
Child and adolescent criterion. Both halves matter: onset soon after eating, and complete absence during sleep.
Not preceded by retching
The discriminating criterion in the older age band. Retching means vomiting, and vomiting is a different disorder.
Other conditions excluded after appropriate evaluation, and an eating disorder ruled out
Child and adolescent criterion. Rome IV names the eating-disorder exclusion explicitly here because the overlap in adolescence is real and easily missed.

What it returns

Criteria met or not met
Four criteria in each age band, including the duration rule.
Which criteria set was applied
Reported explicitly, since the infant and child versions ask quite different questions.

How it is calculated

Rumination is a learned, unconscious behaviour, not a motility disorder. The sequence is a contraction of the abdominal wall musculature that raises intragastric pressure above the pressure in the relaxed lower oesophageal sphincter, so gastric contents move up the oesophagus without any of the effort, retching or autonomic accompaniment of vomiting. Because it is a behaviour, it has the properties of a behaviour: it is absent during sleep, it stops when attention is redirected, and it does not respond to drugs. High-resolution manometry with impedance shows the pattern clearly — a rise in intragastric pressure preceding the retrograde flow — and can confirm the diagnosis where it is in doubt, though most cases can be diagnosed from the history alone. In infants the behaviour is often self-soothing and emerges in contexts of understimulation or reduced interaction, which is why Rome IV includes 'does not occur when the infant is interacting with individuals in the environment' among its supportive features. In adolescents it frequently begins after a discrete event — a viral illness, a period of vomiting, a stressor — and then persists as a habit long after the trigger has gone.

Facts & figures

Distinguishing rumination from the conditions it is mistaken for
FeatureRuminationReflux diseaseVomiting
Retching beforehandNeverNoYes
During sleepNeverCommonPossible
TimingSoon after a meal, often within minutesVariableVariable
Stops when engaged or distractedYesNoNo
ContentRecognisable, often palatable food; may be rechewedAcidicAcidic or bilious
Response to acid suppressionNoneUsually someVariable
Effective treatmentDiaphragmatic breathingAcid suppression where indicatedDepends on cause

Failure of acid suppression is one of the most useful pieces of diagnostic information available, and it is usually interpreted as a reason to increase the dose.

Evidence

Derivation — Rome Foundation, paediatric committees

2016

Consensus criteria from the Rome IV committees on childhood functional gastrointestinal disorders, published in Gastroenterology in 2016 as separate neonate/toddler and child/adolescent papers.

Consensus-derived. The design choice was to make the infant criteria observational — a behaviour that can be watched — and the older criteria descriptive, with the absence of retching carrying the diagnostic weight in both.

Guideline context — NASPGHAN/ESPGHAN 2018

2018

Joint paediatric gastro-oesophageal reflux guideline, which addresses the differential between reflux disease and rumination.

Reinforces that regurgitation not responding to reflux management should prompt reconsideration of the diagnosis rather than escalation of acid suppression.

How it compares

Paediatric Rumination Syndrome vs Rumination syndrome in adults

Same mechanism and same treatment; the paediatric criteria use two months rather than three and add an infant version built on observation.

The adult criteria require three months with onset at least six months previously, and rest on effortless regurgitation not preceded by retching — the same discriminator. The paediatric committees shortened the duration to two months and, for infants, replaced the patient's description with an observable behaviour, since nothing else is available at that age. Treatment is identical across all ages: diaphragmatic breathing after meals, with acid suppression stopped rather than escalated.

Open the Rumination syndrome in adults calculator →

Paediatric Rumination Syndrome vs Infant regurgitation

Effortless in both — but rumination has visible preparatory contractions, stops when the infant is engaged, and never occurs in sleep.

Physiological infant regurgitation is unstructured: it happens after feeds, at any time, regardless of what else is going on. Rumination has an observable prelude of abdominal, diaphragmatic and tongue contractions, and Rome IV lists among its supportive features that it stops when the infant is interacting with someone. The distinction matters because infant regurgitation is a benign condition needing only reassurance, whereas infant rumination is associated with understimulation and with developmental disability and calls for a broader assessment.

Open the Infant regurgitation calculator →

Paediatric Rumination Syndrome vs Functional vomiting

Rome IV explicitly excludes rumination when diagnosing functional vomiting — retching is the dividing line.

The Rome IV criteria for functional vomiting in children require the absence of self-induced vomiting and that criteria for an eating disorder or rumination are not met. That cross-reference exists because the two are confused routinely: both involve gastric contents reaching the mouth repeatedly. Retching separates them cleanly, and asking about it before ordering a gastric emptying study saves a great deal of time.

Open the Functional vomiting calculator →Hyams JS, Di Lorenzo C, Saps M, Shulman RJ, Staiano A, van Tilburg M. Childhood Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders: Child/Adolescent. Gastroenterology. 2016;150(6):1456-1468.

Pearls & pitfalls

  • Absence of retching is the diagnosis. Ask about it directly — it is one question and it usually settles the matter.
  • Rumination never happens during sleep, because it is a behaviour rather than a physiological event.
  • Failure of acid suppression is diagnostic information, not a reason to increase the dose.
  • Diaphragmatic breathing after meals is first-line and works in most patients who practise it.
  • The regurgitant is recognisable, often palatable food, and may be rechewed and reswallowed — patients rarely volunteer this.
  • In adolescents, screen for an eating disorder; Rome IV names this exclusion specifically for the older age band.
  • In infants, assess the caregiving environment — the behaviour is associated with understimulation and with neurodevelopmental disability.
  • Two months, not three — the paediatric duration rules are shorter throughout.
  • Onset in adolescents often follows a discrete trigger such as a viral illness; asking what was happening when it started is worthwhile.
  • High-resolution manometry with impedance confirms the diagnosis where it is genuinely in doubt, but most cases are diagnosed from history.

Critical actions

  • Ask explicitly whether retching precedes the regurgitation.
  • Ask whether it ever happens during sleep.
  • Ask what the regurgitated material tastes like and whether it is ever swallowed again.
  • Establish the timing relative to meals — rumination begins within minutes.
  • Review the history of acid suppression, and stop it if it has not worked.
  • In adolescents, screen for disordered eating and for psychosocial stressors, ideally without a parent present for part of the consultation.
  • In infants, observe a feed and assess interaction, stimulation and developmental status.
  • Teach diaphragmatic breathing after meals and arrange follow-up to reinforce it.
  • Refer for behavioural or psychological support where engagement with breathing training is difficult.

Why this score exists

The most instructive thing in these criteria is a supportive feature rather than a criterion: 'does not occur during sleep and when the infant is interacting with individuals in the environment'. That clause does two jobs at once. Diagnostically, it separates a behaviour from a physiological event more cleanly than any test — reflux does not care whether anyone is in the room, and rumination stops when someone walks in. But it also encodes an observation about why the behaviour exists at all. Rumination in infancy emerges in settings of reduced interaction, and the fact that engagement abolishes it in the moment is the same fact as its association with understimulation. Rome IV states it as a diagnostic feature and leaves the implication unspoken, which is probably the right editorial choice for a criteria document. It does mean that a clinician who ticks the box without thinking about why it is there will have made the diagnosis and missed the point.

About the creator

  • Jeffrey S. Hyams

    First author, Rome IV child/adolescent functional gastrointestinal disorders committee

    Chaired the committee that produced the H1c child and adolescent criteria.

  • Marc A. Benninga

    First author, Rome IV neonate/toddler functional gastrointestinal disorders committee

    Chaired the committee responsible for the G2 infant criteria.

  • Miranda van Tilburg

    Co-author; behavioural aspects of paediatric functional gastrointestinal disorders

    Contributed the behavioural framing that underpins the treatment approach for this disorder.

Limitations

  • Consensus criteria with no validation study, so the two-month threshold is a convention rather than a measured boundary.
  • The absence of retching is reported rather than observed, and children may not distinguish retching from the sensation that precedes regurgitation.
  • The infant criteria require observing a behaviour that frequently stops when an observer is present, which is itself one of the diagnostic features.
  • No severity grading, so the criteria say nothing about nutritional impact, which can be substantial.
  • The supportive-feature count in infants requires three of four without any evidence that those four are equally weighted.
  • Nothing in the criteria indicates when manometry is warranted, leaving that judgement entirely open.
  • The eating-disorder exclusion is named but not operationalised, so how thoroughly it should be pursued is unstated.
  • The criteria describe the behaviour without addressing the caregiving or psychosocial context that frequently sustains it.

If you are the patient

Rumination means food coming back up into the mouth shortly after eating, without any effort, sickness or heaving beforehand. It is often chewed and swallowed again, and it usually tastes like the food that was just eaten rather than sour or acidic. It is not vomiting, and it is not reflux. What happens is that the muscles of the tummy wall tighten without the person meaning to, which squeezes food back up. It is a habit the body has learned, usually without anyone being aware of it, and it very often starts after something else — a stomach bug, a period of being sick, or a stressful time — and then carries on long after that has passed. Two things follow from this. The first is that reflux medicines do not help, because there is nothing for them to act on; if they have already been tried without success, that is a useful clue rather than a reason to try a stronger one. The second is that there is a treatment that does work, and it is not a drug. It is a breathing technique — slow breathing using the diaphragm, practised after meals — which makes the tummy muscle squeeze physically impossible. Most people who practise it properly improve, though it takes repetition rather than a single explanation, so it is normally taught over several sessions. For teenagers, doctors will also ask some questions about eating and about what is going on at school and at home. That is routine and not an accusation; these things sometimes travel together, and if they do, it helps to know.

Frequently asked questions

What are the Rome IV criteria for rumination syndrome in children?#

In children and adolescents: repeated regurgitation and rechewing or expulsion of food beginning soon after a meal and not occurring during sleep; not preceded by retching; and other conditions excluded with an eating disorder ruled out — all for at least two months. In infants the criteria are observational, requiring repetitive abdominal, diaphragmatic and tongue contractions, effortless regurgitation, and three of four supportive features.

How is rumination distinguished from vomiting?#

By retching. Rumination is never preceded by retching, and this single feature separates it from vomiting more reliably than anything else. It is one question, it takes seconds, and it frequently makes the diagnosis without any investigation at all.

Why doesn't acid suppression work?#

Because there is no acid problem to treat. The mechanism is a learned, unconscious contraction of the abdominal wall that raises intragastric pressure above the pressure in a relaxed lower oesophageal sphincter, pushing food back up. Reducing acid does not change that. Failure of acid suppression should therefore prompt reconsideration of the diagnosis rather than escalation of the dose.

What treatment actually works?#

Diaphragmatic breathing after meals. It is first-line, non-pharmacological, and effective in the majority of patients who practise it — it works by making the abdominal contraction that produces the regurgitation incompatible with the breathing pattern. It has to be taught and rehearsed rather than explained once, so referral to a therapist or specialist nurse improves results.

Why does Rome IV mention eating disorders?#

Because the overlap in adolescence is real and easily missed. The criteria name the eating-disorder exclusion only in the child and adolescent band, where regurgitation can be a feature of disordered eating and where the management would be entirely different. Screening should be part of the assessment, and part of the consultation is usually more productive without a parent present.

Why does it never happen during sleep?#

Because it is a behaviour rather than a physiological event. Behaviours stop when the person is asleep; reflux does not. Regurgitation occurring in sleep argues against rumination and towards gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

What is different about the infant criteria?#

They are built on observation rather than description. An infant cannot report retching or describe timing, so Rome IV substitutes visible repetitive contractions of the abdominal muscles, diaphragm and tongue, plus a count of supportive features — onset between three and eight months, no response to reflux management, no signs of distress, and absence during sleep or interaction.

Is infant rumination a safeguarding concern?#

It warrants a careful look at the caregiving environment. Rome IV lists among its supportive features that the behaviour does not occur when the infant is interacting with someone, and the disorder is associated with understimulation and with neurodevelopmental disability. Increased holding, interaction and stimulation are part of the treatment, so assessing that context is clinical work rather than an add-on.

Related calculators

  • Rumination Syndrome — Rome IV — effortless regurgitation without retching
  • Infant Regurgitation — Rome IV — the happy spitter, and the alarm features that rule it out
  • Functional Nausea & Vomiting (Children) — Rome IV — two separate disorders that can be met together
  • Paediatric Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome — Rome IV — both age bands, with different criteria for each
  • Paediatric Functional Dyspepsia — Rome IV — four times a month, with PDS and EPS subtyping

References

Original / primary references

  1. Hyams JS, Di Lorenzo C, Saps M, Shulman RJ, Staiano A, van Tilburg M. Childhood Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders: Child/Adolescent. Gastroenterology. 2016;150(6):1456-1468 (Rome IV, H1c).
  2. Benninga MA, Nurko S, Faure C, Hyman PE, St James Roberts I, Schechter NL. Childhood Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders: Neonate/Toddler. Gastroenterology. 2016;150(6):1443-1455 (Rome IV, G2).

Clinical practice guidelines

  1. Rosen R, Vandenplas Y, Singendonk M, Cabana M, DiLorenzo C, Gottrand F, et al. Pediatric Gastroesophageal Reflux Clinical Practice Guidelines: Joint Recommendations of NASPGHAN and ESPGHAN. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2018;66(3):516-554.

Last updated August 1, 2026. Clinical knowledge base written and curated by GastroAGI Team from primary medical literature.

Written from primary literature and not yet independently clinically reviewed.

For use by qualified healthcare professionals. This calculator supports clinical judgement and does not replace it.