How to Classify, Teach, and Learn Ophthalmic Eponyms.

Introduction There are limited educational studies on effective ways to teach and learn medical eponyms. While there is no consensus on how to best address this issue, developing novel strategies to teach medical eponyms has become critical in many branches of medicine, including ophthalmology.  Materials & Methods An ophthalmologic eponymic database was created using eight source texts (e.g., books, encyclopedias, and dictionaries) and included the year the eponym was introduced, related name, nationality, specialty, and the eponym's description. PubMed database with a Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) keyword for "eponym" and "eye" and "ophthalmology" and a Google search for a combination of related keywords was also performed. A careful biographical search was conducted for each name in the second phase to obtain further biographical details. Inclusion criteria for eponyms in the dataset were: i) named after at least one person, ii) identified as a specific medical term in the literature, iii) related to any field of medicine. Names derived from art, history, mythology, patient, family, chemistry, botany (or other fields outside of medicine) were excluded. The three authors independently screened to eliminate duplicated names and ensure eligible names met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results A total of 1,257 unique ophthalmologic eponyms representing 8.8% of 14,332 medical eponyms were identified. Three-hundred fifty-one of 743 (47.2%) eponyms were named after ophthalmologists representing 36 countries. The United States of America and Germany comprised the largest fraction of nationalities (40.2%), not necessarily representing their birthplace. Signs, syndromes, and diseases composed the largest category (45.8%) of eponymous ophthalmologic names. Discussion The current volume of eponymous names impedes the ability of a learner to retain this information. Classifying eponyms based on form, intention, or function, provides a more refined method for placing eponyms in their respective categories. Teaching eponyms by enumerating their historical content, demonstrating the correct performance of the eponym, assessing the technique, and providing feedback, affords the learner a more fruitful and meaningful learning experience. Understanding the context of the signs, syndrome, or techniques further allows the learner to gain insights into the clinical application of eponyms in diagnostic decision-making. Conclusion The teaching model proposed incorporates key aspects that may facilitate retention and recall of the eponymous name. The model includes imparting historical knowledge about the person who described the sign, technique, or process; demonstrating the correct procedure as originally reported; and coaching to ensure that the appropriate skill is mastered. Before abandoning eponyms, it is first necessary to understand their efficacy, effectiveness, usefulness, and role in clinical medicine.