Got Goljan RR 4th edition -> new gold standard

[HoboCommander]

I went through Pathoma 3x and needed something more. There were images on exams that stumped me, and there were some topics that did not get covered in Pathoma.

I hated RR 3rd edition because it was a hard-to-read bullet-point format. Well, I got the 4th edition anyway and while they added 200 pages (at 800 pages now), it is now far more readable. Still bullet-point format but now he uses complete sentences and it flows. MASSIVE improvement.

There's a heavy amount of physiology that other pathology resources don't go over. Also there's a lot of high yield images. This book is simply the best pathology resource. I would still do Pathoma first but this book would have gotten me so many missed questions correct. Highly recommended for those already getting 240+ on NBMEs.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Locrian]

Sure Robbins is good for pure path, but Goljan RR 4th covers a lot more boards material. It covers USMLE physiology better than the popular BRS Physiology book, covers histology, covers microbiology, covers biochemistry, covers anatomy, covers embryology, covers biostats, covers nutrition, etc.

RR's coverage competes more with First Aid than with other pathology resources. You can use the book however you like because it's high yield material everywhere and it's an easy read.

Dammit, okay you convinced me

 

[sgk14]

Thanks

 

[Mcat35]

I wouldn't consider this edition a review book anymore its pretty dense lol...

 

[Val7]

I have the third, revised edition but have not started studying yet. Is it worth buying the 4th edition? I wish I had not bought the third yet!

 

[Brain Bucket]

So, I was reading the 4th Ed., and it's missing PGD2 on the schematic for Arachidonic acid metabolism on page 43, which was present in the 3rd ed (p. 23). Any idea why?

 

[jmath27]

Sorry for the bump but I had a question for those of you who have used the 4th edition or any other editions in the past. Are bone tumors not stressed in the book? I've been consolidating my materials (pathoma and goljan) into first aid and I've noticed that the only info he has on bone tumors (for instance, osteosarcoma) is the information listed on a table in the Musculoskeletal section for this book.

I know on the audio files, he says that bone tumors and what not aren't really tested heavily on step 1. Is that the reason why there isn't any lengthy information on the subject in his 4th edition of the book?

 

[001100010010011]

Anyone purchase the new BRS Pathology? How does it compare to this new Goljan edition?

 

[ViciousKicks]

He said he omitted it because he didn't think it did anything significant enough to warrant its inclusion.

 

[Brain Bucket]

Danke.

 

[SOML]

001100010010011, are you referring to BRS Path, 5th ed.?

I'm curious about this too, as to the differences between the 4th and 5th eds. of BRS Path..

About to get a Goljan 4th though.

 

[001100010010011]

Hey, I picked the 5th edition of BRS up myself. I am not sure what the differences are between the 4th and 5th editions but I would recommend it if it's within your budget.

Of course, it overlaps a lot with Goljan but BRS has a few tidbits here and there that are not in Rapid Review--I mainly use BRS for a quick overview (each chapter is 10 pages and the book is small). Then, I focus on Rapid Review to get the pathophys and high-yield concepts.

Also, BRS 5th edition will give you access to the online qbank (10-15 questions per chapter, all first order though), which is nice.

 

[SOML]

awesome, thanks. Yea, I've heard a lot that BRS path is a good adjunct for class (as with Pathoma's book).

With the Goljan's RR "covering physio/biochem/all subjects" along with path, how are you guys using RR? Does it flow (at least better than his 3rd ed.)? Is RR also recommended as adjunct to class as well?

Also, how significant are the differences in RR 4th - with the infamous "Goljan audio" (which is yeeears old)

 

[001100010010011]

So RR has the blue text in the margins (good for overviews of key concepts) and the main text (good for getting the details/pathophysiology).

It flows pretty well even though it's dense. It is like a primary text that is just condensed.

I cannot comment on the audio.