Abstract
The objective of this commentary is to highlight the pervasive usage of both forms of medical eponyms in medical literature amongst prestigious medical journals indexed in the PubMed database. This use of eponyms poses a source of confusion in literature searching as well as a lack of consistency in medical education. The adoption of consistent non-possessive forms should be encouraged by editors, reviewers, and publishers.
Highlights
Since 1974, NIH has recommended refraining from using possessive eponyms [1], which are medical terms named after people that include an “s” at the end
Despite criticisms, the possessive forms of medical eponyms remain in common use (e.g., Down’s syndrome rather than Down syndrome)
Whereas the possessive form was applied nearly universally to medical literature from 1960s until the early 1970s [3], arguments both for and against the use of possessive medical eponyms emerged in the mid-1970s
Summary
Since 1974, NIH has recommended refraining from using possessive eponyms [1], which are medical terms named after people that include an “s” at the end. Despite criticisms, the possessive forms of medical eponyms remain in common use (e.g., Down’s syndrome rather than Down syndrome). Whereas the possessive form was applied nearly universally to medical literature from 1960s until the early 1970s [3], arguments both for and against the use of possessive medical eponyms emerged in the mid-1970s. The World Health Organization in 2004 and the American Medical Association in 2007 advocated for eliminating the possessive form [4, 5]. This commentary highlights the dilemma of continued use of possessive forms of eponyms in prestigious journals indexed in the PubMed database
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
