Neurological eponyms--who gets the credit? Essay review

The recent publication of Neurological Eponyms by Peter Koehler and colleagues has revived the interest in neurological eponyms and raised important questions about their use. Many investigators have contributed to the body of knowledge that defines the specialty of neurology. We honor them by associating their names with neurological diseases. The history of neurological eponyms provides us with an opportunity to reexamine the important question of who gets the credit. Additional issues have surfaced including why certain eponyms tend to stick in the literature and others disappear, as well as the important realization that lengthy modern descriptions may require name eponyms for simplification. Eponyms can be confusing as to whether they refer to a disease or a syndrome and this confusion can impact the diagnosis and treatment of patients. There is an inevitable evolution of certain eponyms as our understanding of entities expands. This paper provides an overview of neurological eponyms with the explanation of the potential reasons why names were associated with neurological diseases. These included first case reports, relating isolated cases, years of observation, defining neuroanatomy, physician sufferer, new physical examination maneuvers, academic climate, the advent of a new procedure, fame, and competition amongst investigators. Important issues have surfaced regarding sharing credit amongst investigators, name priority, crediting the wrong investigator, and lack of a defined system to award credit. Since eponym use is based on a peer dependent system, each neurologist must make a more critical appraisal of who gets the credit and understand the differences between diseases and syndromes in order to better preserve neurological history.