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. Unspecified Functional Bowel Disorder
Functional GI

Unspecified Functional Bowel Disorder

Rome IV — bowel symptoms fitting no other category

All four must be excluded. This category exists precisely for patients who fall between them.

The residual category, and the only Rome IV bowel disorder defined entirely by what it is not. Its value is that it gives a name to symptoms that are real but do not fit the other boxes.

When to use
Use it after working through the four specific bowel disorders, never instead of them. It is a legitimate endpoint for a patient whose symptoms are real, whose organic work-up is negative, and whose pattern does not satisfy any of the defined categories — commonly because a frequency threshold is not quite reached, or because the symptom mix straddles two categories without dominating in either. It is not a label to reach for early, and using it to avoid the work of checking the specific criteria defeats its purpose entirely.
Why use it
Because the alternative to a residual category is a patient with no diagnosis at all, and that has consequences. Without a name, symptoms get re-investigated; the patient is told repeatedly that nothing is wrong; and treatment is withheld pending a classification that may never arrive. Rome IV's decision to include an explicit residual category is an acknowledgement that its own taxonomy has edges, and that falling outside the boxes is a feature of how symptoms actually present rather than evidence of an incomplete assessment. Practically, it gives permission to treat the dominant symptom now and revisit the classification later.
Formula, evidence and interpretation

About the Rome IV Criteria for Unspecified Functional Bowel Disorder

Alone among the Rome IV bowel disorders, this one is defined entirely by what it is not. The criterion is bowel symptoms not attributable to an organic aetiology that do not meet criteria for irritable bowel syndrome, functional constipation, functional diarrhoea, or functional abdominal bloating and distension — fulfilled over three months with onset at least six months ago. It exists because the four specific categories, taken together, do not cover everyone with genuine functional bowel symptoms, and a patient who falls between them needs a name rather than a shrug.

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

Unspecified FBD = timing AND bowel symptoms AND no organic aetiology AND NOT (IBS OR functional constipation OR functional diarrhoea OR functional bloating)
NOT (any of four)
All four specific bowel disorders must be excluded. This is the entire content of the definition.
No organic aetiology
Assumes the organic work-up has been completed. Rome IV does not specify what that comprises, leaving it to clinical judgement.
  • A single criterion — the shortest definition in the Rome IV bowel chapter.
  • Residual within the functional disorders, not a holding position while investigation continues.
  • Patients frequently migrate into one of the four specific categories over time, so the label should be revisited rather than treated as settled.
  • The category exists because the four specific disorders have frequency thresholds and dominance requirements that leave genuine gaps between them.

Interpreting the result

A positive result means the symptoms are real, organic disease has been excluded, and the pattern does not fit a defined category — which is a diagnosis, not a failure to reach one. Say that to the patient explicitly, because the natural reading of 'unspecified' is that nothing has been found. Treat the dominant symptom on its own terms rather than waiting for a more specific classification: laxatives, antidiarrhoeals, antispasmodics and neuromodulators are not gated on which Rome category applies. Then plan to reassess, because a substantial proportion of these patients declare themselves over the following months as the symptom pattern settles or intensifies — and a reclassification into IBS, functional constipation, functional diarrhoea or functional bloating opens up more specific evidence-based options. Where criteria are not met, the reason is nearly always that one of the four specific disorders does apply on closer reading, which is the better result.

ScoreBandWhat it meansAction
All criteria metUnspecified functional bowel disorderGenuine functional bowel symptoms that do not satisfy any of the four defined categoriesTreat the dominant symptom now; reassess in a few months, as many patients reclassify
One of the four specific disorders appliesCriteria not metA specific diagnosis is available, with a more developed evidence baseUse that disorder's pathway
Organic cause not excludedCriteria not met — work-up incompleteThis is a residual category within the functional disorders, not a holding position during investigationComplete the organic assessment first

What the Unspecified Functional Bowel Disorder needs (3 inputs)

Timing
Criterion fulfilled for the last three months with symptom onset at least six months before diagnosis — the same rule applied across the bowel chapter.
Bowel symptoms not attributable to an organic aetiology
The organic work-up must have been done and be negative. This category is residual within the functional disorders, not residual within undiagnosed illness.
Criteria not met for IBS, functional constipation, functional diarrhoea, or functional bloating/distension
All four must be checked and found not to apply. This is the substance of the diagnosis — the criterion is the exclusion.

What it returns

Criteria met or not met
Requires the timing rule, an organic cause excluded, and all four specific disorders excluded.
Which criterion remains outstanding
Named explicitly. A failure usually means one of the four specific disorders does apply, which is a better outcome than this label.

How it is calculated

The four specific Rome IV bowel disorders are separated by thresholds — a proportion of defecations, a number of days per week, a judgement about which symptom predominates — and thresholds create gaps. A patient with loose stools in 20% of stools and mild intermittent pain meets neither functional diarrhoea nor IBS. A patient whose symptoms alternate between constipation and bloating without either dominating meets neither category. Rather than force those patients into the nearest box or leave them undiagnosed, Rome IV provides a residual category defined purely by exclusion. That design is honest about the limits of a threshold-based taxonomy, and it mirrors the unspecified categories that appear elsewhere in the classification — the same logic that produces IBS-U for patients whose stool pattern does not fit a subtype.

Facts & figures

Why the gaps exist — the thresholds that create them
DisorderThreshold that can be narrowly missed
Irritable bowel syndromeAbdominal pain at least 1 day a week, plus 2 of 3 pain characteristics
Functional constipationTwo or more of six items, each in more than 25% of defecations
Functional diarrhoeaLoose stools in more than 25% of stools
Functional bloating/distensionBloating at least 1 day a week AND predominating over other symptoms

A patient just below two of these thresholds simultaneously has real symptoms and no specific diagnosis. That is the population this category exists for, and it is larger than the four tidy definitions imply.

Evidence

Derivation — Rome Foundation, bowel disorders committee

2016

Consensus criteria from the Rome IV bowel disorders committee, published in Gastroenterology in 2016.

Consensus-derived, and definitional rather than predictive. The category has no discriminating statistics because it is defined entirely by the failure of four other definitions.

Companion residual categories in Rome IV

2016

Rome IV includes analogous unspecified categories elsewhere, including IBS unclassified for patients whose stool pattern does not fit a subtype, and unspecified functional anorectal pain.

Demonstrates a consistent design principle across the classification: where thresholds create gaps, an explicit residual category is provided rather than forcing patients into the nearest defined box.

Guideline context — ACG irritable bowel syndrome

2021

ACG clinical guideline on the management of irritable bowel syndrome, which addresses symptom-directed treatment in functional bowel disease.

Supports treating the dominant symptom in functional bowel disorders, which is the practical approach where a specific Rome category does not apply.

How it compares

Unspecified Functional Bowel Disorder vs Rome IV criteria for IBS

IBS is the first category to check and the commonest reason this label does not apply — the discriminator is recurrent abdominal pain meeting the frequency and characteristic requirements.

IBS requires abdominal pain on average at least one day a week over three months, with at least two of three characteristics: related to defecation, associated with a change in stool frequency, or associated with a change in stool form. Patients narrowly missing the pain frequency, or meeting only one characteristic, fall out of IBS and frequently land here. Because IBS has substantially more treatment evidence and several licensed drugs, it is worth confirming carefully — a diary sometimes shows the pain frequency is higher than the patient first reported, which reclassifies them usefully.

Open the Rome IV criteria for IBS calculator →

Unspecified Functional Bowel Disorder vs IBS unclassified (IBS-U)

Different kinds of residual — IBS-U is for a patient who meets IBS criteria but has no dominant stool pattern; this category is for a patient who does not meet IBS criteria at all.

The two are easy to confuse because both sound like classification failures. IBS unclassified applies within IBS: the diagnostic criteria are satisfied but the proportion of Bristol 1–2 versus 6–7 stools on abnormal days does not identify a predominant subtype. Unspecified functional bowel disorder applies outside all four specific disorders. The practical difference is significant — a patient with IBS-U has IBS and all its treatment options, while a patient here does not, and treatment is directed at the dominant symptom rather than by subtype.

Unspecified Functional Bowel Disorder vs Functional bloating and distension

The category most often narrowly missed, because it requires bloating to *predominate* as well as occur weekly — and predominance is a judgement.

A patient with weekly bloating alongside comparable pain or altered bowel habit fails the predominance requirement and falls into the unspecified category. That is a fine distinction resting on a subjective assessment of which symptom matters most, and different clinicians will draw it differently for the same patient. It is worth asking the patient directly which symptom they would most want removed, since their answer is more relevant than the clinician's impression and frequently resolves the classification.

Open the Functional bloating and distension calculator →Lacy BE, Mearin F, Chang L, Chey WD, Lembo AJ, Simren M, Spiller R. Bowel Disorders. Gastroenterology. 2016;150(6):1393-1407.

Pearls & pitfalls

  • This is a destination, not a starting point. Work through all four specific disorders before applying it — using it to skip that work defeats its purpose.
  • It is residual within the functional disorders, not a holding label while investigation continues. The organic work-up must be complete.
  • Say explicitly that this is a diagnosis. 'Unspecified' reads to patients as 'nothing found', which is the opposite of what it means and drives repeat presentation.
  • Do not withhold treatment pending a more specific label. Symptom-directed therapy is not gated on which Rome category applies.
  • Reassess after a few months. A substantial proportion of patients reclassify as the symptom pattern settles, and the specific categories carry more developed evidence.
  • Narrowly missing a threshold in two categories simultaneously is the commonest route here — check whether a diary changes the estimates before settling.
  • Alarm features are outside these criteria entirely and require investigation regardless.
  • Consider whether the symptoms are better described by a disorder outside the bowel chapter, such as postprandial distress syndrome or a centrally mediated pain disorder.

Critical actions

  • Apply the criteria for IBS, functional constipation, functional diarrhoea and functional bloating individually before defaulting here.
  • Confirm the organic work-up is complete and negative, since this category assumes it.
  • Ask for a one- to two-week symptom and stool diary — proportions estimated from recall frequently move a patient across a threshold in either direction.
  • Treat the dominant symptom now rather than deferring management pending classification.
  • Explain that this is a positive diagnosis of a functional disorder, not an absence of findings.
  • Schedule a review at three to six months to reassess whether a specific category now applies.
  • Address alarm features independently of the criteria.
  • Consider disorders outside the bowel chapter where the symptom pattern suggests them.

Why this score exists

Including a residual category is a quiet admission that a threshold-based taxonomy will always have people falling between its categories, and the committee chose to name that rather than pretend otherwise. The alternative approaches would both have been worse: widening the specific criteria until everyone fits would make them useless for research, and leaving these patients unclassified would leave them without a diagnosis in a field where the diagnosis is much of the treatment. Rome IV applies the same principle elsewhere — IBS unclassified, unspecified functional anorectal pain — so this is a design decision rather than an afterthought. What the committee did not do is give the category any positive content, and that is deliberate too: adding features would turn a residual box into a fifth specific disorder and recreate the same problem one layer down.

About the creator

  • Brian E. Lacy

    First author, Rome IV bowel disorders committee

    Chaired the committee that produced the Rome IV functional bowel disorder criteria, including the residual category.

  • Fermín Mearin

    Co-author, Rome IV bowel disorders committee

    Co-authored the bowel disorders chapter and its classification structure.

Limitations

  • Defined entirely by exclusion, so it carries no positive clinical information and cannot guide treatment on its own.
  • Has essentially no dedicated evidence base — trials recruit to the specific categories, so treatment is extrapolated.
  • Unstable over time, with patients frequently reclassifying into a specific disorder.
  • Depends on all four specific disorders having been assessed correctly, which in practice is variable.
  • 'Unspecified' communicates poorly to patients and reads as an absence of diagnosis unless explicitly framed otherwise.
  • Consensus-derived and definitional, with no measured accuracy against any reference standard.
  • Says nothing about severity, mechanism or prognosis.
  • Risks being used as a shortcut that avoids working through the specific criteria, which is the opposite of its intended function.

If you are the patient

Unspecified functional bowel disorder means you have genuine bowel symptoms, tests have not found a physical disease causing them, and the pattern does not quite match any of the four more specific conditions doctors classify — irritable bowel syndrome, functional constipation, functional diarrhoea, or functional bloating. The word 'unspecified' sounds like nothing has been found, and that is not what it means. It means the symptoms are real and recognised, but they sit between the defined categories, usually because a symptom happens slightly less often than a definition requires, or because two symptoms are equally troublesome rather than one clearly dominating. This does not hold up your treatment. Doctors treat whichever symptom bothers you most — constipation, loose stools, bloating or discomfort — and none of those treatments depends on which label applies. It is also worth knowing that this classification often changes. As symptoms settle into a clearer pattern over the following months, many people move into one of the specific categories, which can open up more targeted treatment options. Keeping a simple diary of your symptoms and stool type for a week or two genuinely helps with that, because it is much more accurate than trying to remember afterwards.

Frequently asked questions

What is unspecified functional bowel disorder?#

A Rome IV diagnosis for bowel symptoms with no organic cause that do not meet criteria for irritable bowel syndrome, functional constipation, functional diarrhoea, or functional abdominal bloating and distension. The criterion must be fulfilled for three months with symptom onset at least six months earlier. It is defined entirely by exclusion.

Is this a real diagnosis or just a lack of one?#

A real diagnosis. It means the symptoms are genuine, organic disease has been excluded, and the pattern falls between defined categories — which is a recognised outcome of any threshold-based classification rather than an incomplete assessment. Rome IV includes similar residual categories elsewhere, such as IBS unclassified and unspecified functional anorectal pain, as a deliberate design principle.

Why do patients fall between the four specific categories?#

Because each specific disorder has thresholds — a proportion of defecations, a number of days a week, a judgement about which symptom predominates. A patient just below two thresholds simultaneously has real symptoms and no specific diagnosis. Alternating or mixed symptom patterns without a dominant feature produce the same result.

Does this label delay treatment?#

It should not. Symptom-directed treatment — laxatives, antidiarrhoeals, antispasmodics, neuromodulators — is not gated on which Rome category applies. Withholding management pending a more specific classification is a common and avoidable error, and the classification may never become more specific.

How is this different from IBS unclassified?#

IBS unclassified applies within IBS: the patient meets IBS diagnostic criteria but has no predominant stool pattern to assign a subtype. Unspecified functional bowel disorder applies to a patient who does not meet IBS criteria at all. The practical difference matters — a patient with IBS-U has IBS and access to its treatment evidence and licensed drugs, while a patient here does not.

Should the diagnosis be reviewed?#

Yes. A substantial proportion of patients reclassify into one of the four specific disorders as the symptom pattern settles over the following months, and the specific categories carry a more developed evidence base. A review at three to six months, ideally informed by a symptom and stool diary, is worthwhile rather than treating the label as settled.

Does an organic work-up need to be complete first?#

Yes. This is a residual category within the functional bowel disorders, not a holding position while investigation continues. The criterion explicitly requires that symptoms are not attributable to an organic aetiology, so applying it before the work-up is complete misuses it.

Can a symptom diary change the classification?#

Frequently. Several of the specific criteria are proportions — more than 25% of defecations, at least one day a week — which patients estimate poorly from memory. A one- to two-week diary using the Bristol scale often moves a patient across a threshold in one direction or the other, and reclassifying into a specific disorder is generally the more useful outcome.

Related calculators

  • Rome IV Criteria for IBS — Irritable bowel syndrome diagnosis and subtype
  • Functional Constipation — Rome IV — two of six items, IBS excluded
  • Functional Diarrhoea — Rome IV — loose stools without predominant pain
  • Functional Bloating / Distension — Rome IV — bloating without other bowel disorder criteria
  • Bristol Stool Scale — Stool form types 1–7 and colonic transit

References

Original / primary reference

  1. Lacy BE, Mearin F, Chang L, Chey WD, Lembo AJ, Simren M, Spiller R. Bowel Disorders. Gastroenterology. 2016;150(6):1393-1407 (Rome IV).

Clinical practice guidelines

  1. Lacy BE, Pimentel M, Brenner DM, et al. ACG Clinical Guideline: Management of Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Am J Gastroenterol. 2021;116(1):17-44.
  2. Chang L, Chey WD, Imdad A, et al. AGA-ACG Clinical Practice Guideline: Pharmacological Management of Chronic Idiopathic Constipation. Gastroenterology. 2023;164(7):1086-1106.

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.