The health sphere represents fertile ground for the production of eponyms. Prominent examples are Salk vaccine, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and Obamacare. Perpetual glory appears to be associated with having one’s name used in such ways and the website Whonamedit.com provides thousands of examples of medical eponyms. Is the practice of employing them a constructive use of nomenclature or has it become more timeworn than beneficial? This kind of question is addressed in a manuscript that appeared in the February 11, 2020 issue of the journal Neurology in which a study is described that assesses historical trends of medical eponym use in neurology literature, and knowledge and attitudes among current trainees related to eponyms. The yearly prevalence of eponyms among neurologist-authored publications ranged from 15% and 25%, with a mean of 21%. The total number of unique eponyms appearing in titles and abstracts increased from 693 in 1988 to 1,076 in 2013, representing 1.8% average annual growth.
Worth noting is that medical eponyms represent a polarizing issue among clinicians, including neurologists. Impassioned calls for the abandonment of eponyms in the published literature and in clinical use have appeared regularly in the literature for decades. Supporters explain that eponyms are concise and memorable, providing an effective shorthand to communicate precisely in clinical settings. Eponyms also may represent an essential thread of medical history, an oral tradition transmitted to successive generations of students through teaching rounds. An opposing perspective is that eponyms can be viewed as lacking accuracy and being characterized by inconsistent usage, frequent misattribution of credit, and occasional recognition of individuals with unethical research practices, such as Nazi-affiliated physicians. Study findings indicate that residents with at least one year of neurology training reported familiarity with significantly more eponyms than those before neurology training (p < 0.001). For familiar eponyms, most residents either were unaware of an alternative descriptor or preferred using the eponym. Despite recognizing both the benefits and drawbacks of eponyms, the vast majority of trainees stated that historical precedent, pervasiveness, and ease of use would drive the continued use of eponyms in neurology. For the nonce, it seems reasonable to predict that this path to immortality will remain open.
More Articles from February 2020 TRENDS
GEOGRAPHIC INFLUENCE ON HEALTH DISPARITIES
Indicates how inhabitants of rural parts of the U.S. have poorer health outcomes than their urban counterparts and reduced access to health care resources. Read more
PRESIDENT’S CORNER
President Phyllis King discusses the newly revised ASAHP Strategic Plan. Read more
PULLING BACK THE CURTAIN
Depicts federal government funding initiatives revealed in the President’s 2020 State of the Union Address and in the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2021 Budget. Read More
HEALTH REFORM DEVELOPMENTS
Points out some challenges in financing the steady growth of health care costs and efforts to curb waste in the provision of services. Read More
DEVELOPMENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Describes a regulatory step by the federal government to address violations of free speech rights of students and a bipartisan proposal to reauthorize the Higher Education Act (ACE). Read More
QUICK STAT (SHORT, TIMELY, AND TOPICAL)
2020 Patient Data Breach Barometer
Self-Reported Marijuana Use In Electronic Cigarettes Among U.S. Youth
· Light-Adapted Electroretinogram Difference In Autism Spectrum Disorder
Evolving Magnetically Levitated Plasma Proteins Detect Opioid Use Disorder As A Model Disease Read More
AVAILABLE RESOURCES ACCESSIBLE ELECTRONICALLY
Clinical Prevention And Population Health Curriculum Framework
Precarious Work Schedules And Population Health
Quantification Of U.S. Neighborhood-Level Social Determinants Of Health Read More
THE ROAD TO IMMORTALITY IS PAVED WITH EPONYMS
Mentions historical trends in the production of health eponyms and views of a sample of neurology residents about the continued use of these naming devices. Read More
QUANTIFYING HEALTH SYSTEMS’ INVESTMENTS IN SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH
Refers to an investigation of the extent to which U.S. health systems are investing in housing-focused interventions, employment, education, food security, transportation, and social and community endeavors. Read More