SO062ON THE HISTORY OF THE HISTORY OF NEPHROLOGY

Abstract

Introduction and Aims: In the last 20 years two scientific bodies were created in the field of the History of Nephrology. One is the ISN Committee for the History of Nephrology and the other the International Association for the History of Nephrology (IAHN). As the time elapsed since their creation is long enough we aimed to a review of their work, having in mind the dictum “To know thou self” which was incised on the front of the Oracle in Delphi. Methods: We undertook a statistical analysis of the 341 papers promoted by the IAHN and published in the American Journal of Nephrology and the Journal of Nephrology between the years 1997 - 2016. Results: a) Topics presented: General history: 39, Clinical nephrology (including hypertension and treatments ) : 64, Renal Physiology/ Anatomy: 17, Medicinal Plants: 24, Diet (including salt): 11, Water and Electrolytes (Including Thermal Baths): 20, Dialysis and Tx 22, On Urines 35, Urology (including renal stones): 18, Religious - Social (including monastery medicine): 32, Biographies: 142, Education: 23, Manuscripts: 19, History of local nephrology: 13, Varia (including radiology): 20. • b) Geographical location under discussion: Central Europe: 25, Eastern Europe: 22, Italy: 65, Greece (Including Byzantium): 32, Middle East (including Israel and North Africa): 13, USA: 7, Rest of theWorld: 8, Independent of Location 63. • c) Historical Period: Classical: 24, Middle Ages: 44, Renaissance: 17, Enlightenment: 37, Modern: 95, Timeless: 51. • d) Nationality of the Authors: Italy: 100, Greece: 30, USA: 28, UK: 19: Germany: 9, Poland: 12. • e) Papers per author (the first 14): Author A: 38, Author B: 15, Author C: 14, Authors D, E: 11, Authors F,G,H: 7, Authors I,K,L,M,N: 5, Author N: 5 • f ) Number of co-authors per article, per country for the years 1997-2013: Germany : 3,4, Italy: 3,0, Poland: 2,5, USA: 1,6, Greece: 1,5, UK: 1,0 Conclusions: Practically, all the areas of the History of Nephrology were covered with variable emphasis. As the specialty is still young, most of the issues discussed were rather modern. There was a bias towards biographies, natural in historiography but recently in Academia there is a preference towards more general issues. Uroscopy was given a protagonist's role, having a monopoly in the past as a laboratory tool. The Greco - Roman world was heavily represented both as the author's nationality and as the origin of the topics. It is obvious that very small countries played a major role into the IAHN's activities, in contrast with whole continents. A logical to assumption is that the Association is based mainly on a few devoted members, and needs a wider fellowship. It is noticeable that in some countries there was a preference towards a broad co-authorship while in others single authors predominate. Overall, the contribution of the IAHN towards the understanding and spreading the historical background of Nephrology was vital. However, further expansion is necessary.