Objective: Medical literature shows that some authors tend to use the eponym Behçet/Behçet’s disease/syndrome, whereas others use its amalgamated form, that is, Adamantiades-Behçet/Behçet’sdisease/syndrome. We investigated the changes in the use of these eponyms over the past 2 decades.Methods: We used the PubMed database to search for publications that contained any of these nomenclatures using the appropriate tools available. Data were obtained for the title evaluated in thedatabase and variations of the title or its distribution by year with respect to the nomenclature foundin most related studies.Results: A total of 4,211 publications were found to use the original eponym compared with 96 publications that included the term Adamantiades from the year 2000 to the present. Considering thetitle of the articles, there was a declining use of the amalgamated form with Adamantiades from thefirst decade to the second decade, whereas there was an increasing use of Behçet/Behçet’s disease orsyndrome. In contrast, the relative percentages of all the reviewed articles that used the eponym disease or syndrome (without the amalgamated form) published in different specialty journals (rheumatology, ophthalmology, dermatology, and others) remained unchanged during the past 2 decades.Conclusion: The general trend was to use Behçet/Behçet’s disease or syndrome alone, although manyscientists have contributed to the literature related to this topic during the historical period. The contributions of these scientists are undeniably significant, and honoring their importance is paramount.