↓ Skip to main content

The use of eponyms in medical case reports: etymological, quantitative, and structural analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Case Reports, April 2023
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The use of eponyms in medical case reports: etymological, quantitative, and structural analysis
Published in
Journal of Medical Case Reports, April 2023
DOI 10.1186/s13256-023-03895-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yuliia Lysanets, Olena Bieliaieva

Abstract

The present paper focuses on eponyms, that is, terms with proper names, in particular, derived from world mythologies, the Bible, and modern literature. The study highlights the significance of this terminological phenomenon in the English sublanguage of medicine and discusses its role in the process of writing medical case reports. The objectives of the research are to study the prevalence of eponyms in the English language in medical case reports and to analyze the etymology of the revealed terms. The deeper purpose of our study is to demonstrate that eponymic terms in general, and mythological and literary eponyms, in particular, are present in doctors' spoken and written discourse far more extensively than might seem at first glance. By drawing attention to this terminological phenomenon, we will provide relevant guidelines, which will ensure the correct use of eponyms by medical professionals who will deal with the genre of medical case reports. We studied the prevalence of these terms in the issues of Journal of Medical Case Reports (2008-2022) and classified them according to their etymological origin and frequency of use. The selected medical case reports were considered using the methods of quantitative examination, and structural, etymological, and contextual analyses. We detected the major tendencies in using mythological and literary eponyms in medical case reports. We found a total of 81 mythological and literary eponyms, represented by 3995 cases of use in Journal of Medical Case Reports issues, and traced the etymology of their onomastic components. Hence, we delineated the five most prevalent sources of these terminological units: Greek mythology, Roman mythology, other world mythologies, the Bible, and fiction. The research revealed that modern medical case reports largely rely primarily on Greek mythology (65 eponyms, 3633 results), which is due to a rich informational and metaphorical arsenal of these ancient corpora of human knowledge. The group of eponyms rooted in Roman mythology ranks second, and these terms are much less prevalent in modern medical case reports (6 eponyms, 113 results). Four eponyms (88 results) represent other world mythologies (Germanic and Egyptian). Two terms with onomastic components come from the Bible (15 results), and four eponyms stem from modern literature (146 results). We also detected several widespread mistakes in the spelling of some mythological and literary eponyms. It is our opinion that the awareness of an eponym's etymology can effectively prevent and minimize the appearance of such errors in medical case reports. The adequate use of mythological and literary eponyms in medical case reports is an effective way to share one's clinical findings with colleagues from all over the world, because these eponyms are internationally widespread and understood. Correct use of eponyms promotes the continuity of medical knowledge and ensures conciseness and brevity, which are indispensable features of medical case reports as a genre. Therefore, it is highly important to draw students' attention to the most prevalent mythological and literary eponyms, used in contemporary medical case reports, so they could use them appropriately, as well as with due awareness of the origin of these terms. The study also demonstrated that medicine and humanities are closely related and inherently interconnected areas. We believe that the study of this group of eponyms should be an integral component of doctors' training and continuing professional education. This will ensure the interdisciplinary and synergic approach in modern medical education, which in turn will promote the all-round development of future healthcare specialists, endowed not only with professional expertise, but also with extensive background knowledge.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 3 25%
Librarian 1 8%
Researcher 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 3 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Unknown 6 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 April 2023.
All research outputs
#20,877,804
of 25,651,057 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#2,544
of 4,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#314,737
of 422,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#64
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,651,057 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,632 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 422,310 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.