To assess the historical trends of eponym use in neurology literature and attitudes among current trainees toward eponyms.

A comprehensive list of eponyms was queried against PubMed articles authored by neurologists to assess historical prevalence in the literature from 1988 to 2013. Current neurology trainees and trainees who have matched for residency in neurology, but not yet started neurology training, were surveyed on their perspectives regarding eponyms.

The yearly prevalence of eponyms among neurologist-authored publications ranged from 15% and 25%, as the number of unique eponyms used increased from 693 in 1988 to 1,076 in 2013. Residents with 1+ years of neurology training reported familiarity with significantly more eponyms than those prior to neurology training (p<0.001). Most residents were either unaware of an alternative descriptor or preferred using the eponym. Despite recognizing both the benefits and drawbacks of eponyms, the vast majority of trainees stated that historical precedence, pervasiveness, and ease of use would drive continued use of eponyms in neurology.

Historical eponyms will remain a cornerstone in medical communication moving forward. Educators in neurology should consider how best to integrate useful eponyms and alternative descriptors into training in order to enhance knowledge acquisition and retention.