ArticleCureus2023
Orthopaedic Eponyms: A Tool of the Past.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Eponyms are commonplace in the medical vernacular, however, their use has become increasingly controversial amongst clinicians. Whilst some view them as an honour bestowed on those whose achievements deserve recognition, others see them as thwarted with problems due to confusion, imprecision and unwittingly applauding controversial figures. Nevertheless, the history and culture retained within eponyms define modern-day medicine. To identify current trends in understanding of eponyms, we presented a questionnaire of orthopaedic eponyms and their associated imaging to unspecialised trainees, specialist orthopaedic trainees, and qualified consultants. Eponymous terms were poorly understood at all levels of experience, with- third and fourth-year Orthopaedic trainees (specialist trainee years five and six (ST5/ST6)) being outperformed (22.3%) by non-specialist postgraduate doctors with two or more years of experience (foundation year two (F2) and core surgery year two (CT2)) (29.3%). Based on these trends we present a further narrative review of the challenges eponyms present, whilst justifying their continued use to acknowledge the origins of our discipline, from the favourable to shameful.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.