Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 12, 2026

A Metadata Extraction Approach for Clinical Case Reports to Enable Advanced Understanding of Biomedical Concepts
Published on: September 20, 2018
Behçet's disease or Adamantiades-Behçet disease? An evidence-based historical survey
1Department of Ophthalmology, Erciyes University Medical Faculty, Kayseri, Turkey. evereklioglu@erciyes.edu
Insights
To ensure consistent terminology for Behçet's disease, this review traces its historical progression and emphasizes retaining the established eponym "Behçet" to avoid confusion in medical literature and patient care.
Area of Science:
- Medical History
- Rheumatology
- Vascular Medicine
Background:
- This review examines the historical evolution of Behçet's disease descriptions from ancient texts to modern medical literature.
- It aims to resolve the naming dilemma surrounding the eponym "Behçet" for authors, editors, and researchers.
- The study highlights the importance of consistent terminology in scientific discourse and patient understanding.
Observation:
- While Hippocratic writings noted symptoms, Dr. Hulusi Behçet's publications in 1941 provided the first clear description of the "Triple Symptom Complex."
- The historical progression is analyzed across three distinct periods: pre-Behçet, Behçet, and post-Behçet.
- This chronological analysis underscores the gradual recognition and definition of the syndrome.
Findings:
- The "Classical Triad" of symptoms, indicative of a distinct syndrome, was definitively described by Dr. Hulusi Behçet.
- Despite earlier mentions, Behçet's disease was formally recognized and named after his seminal publications.
- The historical record supports the established eponym "Behçet's disease" since 1941.
Implications:
- Maintaining the eponym "Behçet's disease" is crucial to prevent unnecessary confusion among healthcare professionals, medical students, and the public.
- Standardizing the name avoids disrupting established medical knowledge and patient identification with their condition.
- Consistent nomenclature is vital for effective communication in Behçet's disease research and clinical management, especially given its potential for severe morbidity.
Background:
The aim is to inform authors, investigators, and journal editors about the evolution and progression of Behçet symptoms or findings chronologically in evidence-based historical articles since Hippocratic writings to bring physicians with different areas of interest to a consensus and thus address the significance of consistency in the eponym "Behçet" among authors interested in Behçet's disease care and research, as science does not accept a "naming dilemma".
Material/Methods:
The historical progression of Behçet's disease is divided into three periods, namely pre-Behçet, Behçet, and post-Behçet.
Results:
Although similar symptoms and clinical findings were reported in Hippocratic writings, a clear description of the "Triple Symptom Complex" consisting of the "Classical Triad" that indicates a new syndrome, was not presented until the important publications of Dr. Hulusi Behçet.
Conclusions:
This article will answer the needs and questions of authors and journal editors who are in a dilemma regarding the eponym. Therefore, researchers should strongly avoid changing the name of an old disorder well known since 1941 as "Behçet's disease" by not only every physician who supervises Behçet patients throughout the world, but also medical students and even the public. This would otherwise lead to needless chaos among journal editors, authors, and Behçet patients, who already have difficulty in defining their illness with high morbidity from blinding ocular disease or mortality from vascular, pulmonary, and neurological involvement.
Related Concept Videos
Amebiasis
Methods of Documentation V: CBE
In CBE, healthcare professionals establish predefined standards of practice that define what constitutes...
Acne Infection
American Trypanosomiasis
Malaria
Rheumatic Heart Disease I: Introduction