Any feedback on this book of surgical pathology?

[Patho2009]

http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Surgic...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275157351&sr=8-1

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Gene_]

I am a big fan of Modern Surgical Pathology. It is relatively practical and concise, making it an easy read.

 

[Patho2009]

Thanks. I have decided to shift away from my Sternberg to this book.

 

[oldfatman]

Thanks. I have decided to shift away from my Sternberg to this book.

Read both. And read Rosai, too. You won't have much time to read when you start out in practice. You want to hit the ground running.

 

[deleted314957]

I have each of what are probably the "big 4"--Weidner, Sternberg, Silverberg and Rosai. Rosai seems to be the most detailed but I use Silverberg most anh have since the first edition.

 

[DrBloodmoney]

Read both. And read Rosai, too. You won't have much time to read when you start out in practice. You want to hit the ground running.

^^ Single best piece of advice on this (sub) forum.

I have Silverberg, Sternberg and Fletcher as general texts. I use Sternberg the most.

 

[KCShaw]

Definitely agree to the recommendation of reading at least one of the biggies all the way through during residency. Should at least be familiar enough with the others to understand the pros & cons of each style and slight differences in content focus of each.

I only had my own copy of Rosai, as I felt the images and text suited me. Sternberg always seemed good for the tables of information. Silverberg seemed pretty complete, and obviously has more cytology in general, but I was already 2 years in before I had much exposure to it (which happened to be where Dr. Silverberg was still doing some half-year work, though he was extremely open to everybody else's texts). But, alas, I don't ever recall looking at Modern Surg Path -- given the recent feedback though, if I was doing general surg path I'd have to give it a look.