New clinical compendium can now be ordered from the ASCP

sohsie · Dec 30, 2007

Anyone who looks through my past threads knows that I am one of the biggest proponents of using the ASCP's Quick Compendium of Clinical Pathology to study for CP boards (Thank God I'm done with that, at least until 2016).

The new edition can now be ordered from the ASCP:
http://www.ascp.org/511live/timssnet/products/showlong.cfm?action=long&Primary_id=5671

I haven't sen the new edition yet, but if you are taking CP, I highly recommend buying this book and reading it multiple times.

They also have a molecular path and surg path book in the "quick compendium" series. I definitely think that the molecular path book might be something to look into.

Happy studying!

path19 · Dec 30, 2007

If anyone has the new edition, please let us know how it compares to the old one. Thanks!

yaah · Dec 30, 2007

I am familiar with the surg path compendium, as one of our faculty wrote it. There are no pictures, but it is a good reference for all things surg path (associated diseases, chromosomal findings, syndromes, impox, etc).

DrBloodmoney · Dec 30, 2007

Thanks for the heads up -- ordered.

I've seen a proofing copy of the surg path book. It's like the first edition of the Essentials of Anatomic Pathology book by Cheng and Bostwick. Lots of lists and no pictures. The second edition of Essentials has photos FWIW.

sohsie · Dec 30, 2007

DrBloodmoney said:
Thanks for the heads up -- ordered.

I've seen a proofing copy of the surg path book. It's like the first edition of the Essentials of Anatomic Pathology book by Cheng and Bostwick. Lots of lists and no pictures. The second edition of Essentials has photos FWIW.

I liked Essentials of AP. I started using it way too late to make a serious dent in it, and in the end I passed, but I tell people that if I had to do it over again, I would ... be really upset :laugh:

Well, I tell them that I would have read through Essentials of AP.

106174 · Dec 30, 2007

how important do you think would attending a review course (ASCP, Osler) be to pass the boards? thanks so much for your insight.

yaah · Dec 30, 2007

BigD said:
how important do you think would attending a review course (ASCP, Osler) be to pass the boards? thanks so much for your insight.

According to a CAP survey,

63% of people who passed the boards and responded to a survey did not do any review course
50% took Osler
21% took ASCP
5% took a another review course.

Now, my first reaction to seeing these numbers was that it was an invalid survey, because if 63% didn't take a review course then the maximum # of people who took Osler or ASCP has to be 37%. But I guess it works as a rough estimate. More than half of people wait until 6 months before the exam to "start studying" (whatever that means).

Osler and ASCP are not going to give you any info that isn't already out there. You don't need it to pass. For some people, it might help you organize your thoughts somewhat or your studying. I am not taking a course. They are more expensive than I think is worth it. For some, it is worth the expense. Unfortunately, you don't really know because you can't do that study and you can't take the boards under both circumstances.

sohsie · Dec 30, 2007

BigD said:
how important do you think would attending a review course (ASCP, Osler) be to pass the boards? thanks so much for your insight.

A friend of mine went to ASCP and recorded all of the lectures. I listened to all of the CP and a couple of the AP lectures. We also had an official set of Osler CDs, to which I probably listened to half of them over the course of a year in spurts. I honestly don't think it made much difference.

ASCP is far from comprehensive. Osler is more comprehensive but I think I would have slept through half the lectures had I gone there. People I know who went said it was information overload. Too much info in too little time.

In terms of board prep versus money and time spent, I think it is not worthwhile and unnecessary to take a course. However, for some people, the psychological benefit may be worth it. I think the greatest value in the courses is that it may show you how to direct your studying.

Most people at my program who took it last spring did not take a course (that includes me), and everyone passed.

I think that if you know the quick clinical compendium cold, you will be much better prepared for CP boards than if you take a course. And the new compendium only costs about $100.

deschutes · Dec 31, 2007

I've got the old CP Compendium, also would like to hear about how the new one compares before I spring for it.

yaah · Dec 31, 2007

I'm just keeping the old one.

sohsie · Dec 31, 2007

deschutes said:
I've got the old CP Compendium, also would like to hear about how the new one compares before I spring for it.

I know people who ordered it. Ill take a look at it when one of them gets it.

I think the old one will suffice in any case, though knowing me, Id probably get the new one anyway if it would have been available last year. I definitely would look into getting the molecular path book.

Bosque · Dec 31, 2007

sohsie said:
Osler is more comprehensive but I think I would have slept through half the lectures had I gone there. People I know who went said it was information overload. Too much info in too little time.

I agree with sohsie. I used the Osler CDs and the accompanying syllabus to organize my studying, and I don't think there is much advantage in attending the actual course to have this very same information repeated to you in person. I suppose for some topics, like cytology, it is helpful to be able to see the slides as the presenter points stuff out; but you can accomplish pretty much the same thing if you look at pictures in a good textbook or study set. For other topics, like Blood Bank, I can't think of any added value to attending the course over the CD; the info is the same, and with the CD you can review and pace yourself as you like.

DarksideAllstar · Dec 31, 2007

yaah said:
According to a CAP survey,

63% of people who passed the boards and responded to a survey did not do any review course
50% took Osler
21% took ASCP
5% took a another review course.

Now, my first reaction to seeing these numbers was that it was an invalid survey, because if 63% didn't take a review course then the maximum # of people who took Osler or ASCP has to be 37%.

Do those number sinclude people who took both courses? I guess theoretically people could have taken both Osler and ASCP, thus the math problem.

106174 · Jan 1, 2008

thanks so much everyone for your advice.

i was wondering about the osler review materials - is it true that you can buy them online?

thanks!

sohsie · Jan 1, 2008

BigD said:
thanks so much everyone for your advice.

i was wondering about the osler review materials - is it true that you can buy them online?

thanks!

You can buy a set of notes online. Its $85 plus shipping.

https://www.osler.org/store/index.php?sel_spec=11

I bought a set last year. The notes are not updated every year. Some of them I think were from 1999. Also, you don't get the practice question books that they give you in the course.

You can also buy the audio course on CD ($630 plus shipping)

For Osler blood bank notes, you can download the most current copy online for free at the blood bank guy's website (since they are his notes).

http://www.bbguy.org/education/notes/index.shtml

sohsie · Jan 1, 2008

DarksideAllstar said:
Do those number sinclude people who took both courses? I guess theoretically people could have taken both Osler and ASCP, thus the math problem.

The math still doesnt work. If 50% took Osler, than no more than 50% could "not do any review course." Unless you remove the common sense block in a few people's brains so they can not only have taken the Osler review course while not taking any review course. Then they can also have tea and no tea simultaneously (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy DOS game reference)

DarksideAllstar · Jan 1, 2008

sohsie said:
The math still doesnt work. If 50% took Osler, than no more than 50% could "not do any review course." Unless you remove the common sense block in a few people's brains so they can not only have taken the Osler review course while not taking any review course. Then they can also have tea and no tea simultaneously (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy DOS game reference)

I was making the assumption that after you remove the 63% that didn't take any course, the breakdown for which board review course was of that remaining 37% (ie 50% of those 37% took Osler), but even then the math still doesn't work. Oh well. Probably not taking one anyway.

DrBloodmoney · Jan 7, 2008

Just received today. Looks great. The text is smaller than the 1st edition. The illustrations look more professional. The flow graphs/electrophoresis/tables take up much less page real estate than the 1st edition, but they are still easy to read. 446 pages. Just a cursory flip through it and I get the sense that a lot of the info has been expanded from the 1st edition. Lets hope the mistakes have been corrected.

Now I have four months to upload it to the brain.

SLUsagar · Jan 8, 2008

DrBloodmoney said:
Just received today. Looks great. The text is smaller than the 1st edition. The illustrations look more professional. The flow graphs/electrophoresis/tables take up much less page real estate than the 1st edition, but they are still easy to read. 446 pages. Just a cursory flip through it and I get the sense that a lot of the info has been expanded from the 1st edition. Lets hope the mistakes have been corrected.

Now I have four months to upload it to the brain.

for micro/TS, likely not a look of relevant updates. But what about molecular/genetics sections? For topics like that I'm strongly considering getting the new edition. Any info you can provide would be uber helpful.

EUA · Jan 8, 2008

Hopefully all the mistakes got corrected from the old edition... plus, silly question, but is it a paperback or hardcover? Are the pictures in color?

I kind of want it, but not $100 badly. At this point, anyway.

sohsie · Jan 8, 2008

DrBloodmoney said:
Just received today. Looks great. The text is smaller than the 1st edition. The illustrations look more professional. The flow graphs/electrophoresis/tables take up much less page real estate than the 1st edition, but they are still easy to read. 446 pages. Just a cursory flip through it and I get the sense that a lot of the info has been expanded from the 1st edition. Lets hope the mistakes have been corrected.

Now I have four months to upload it to the brain.

446 pages and smaller print. Hmmm. Still sounds reasonable. I just hope that the compendium doesnt suffer from "Kjeldsberg Disease" in future editions :laugh:

Kjeldsberg Disease - What happens when a compact, powerful study tool morphs into a standard textbook. The old Kjeldsberg was a perfect study guide for hematopathology. Clear, concise, easy to read, softcover, fit in your pocket (big white coat packet anyway). The new edition, while still great, turned into a 2-volume hardcover somewhat bulky definitely will not fit in your pocket textbook which was no longer practical as an on the go review and study guide to hematopathology. To me, this was the whole point of the book in the first place. But maybe its just me.

YoungFP · Jan 10, 2008

Got new compendium. Hardcover. Very much expanded from last version. Looks great. Will be using it extensively for CP board study. Worth the money.

yaah · Jan 10, 2008

Sigh. I have the old one. Am tempted to bite the bullet and buy the new one also. SIGH. My dissuading factor is that I have the old one and other review material, so is it really going to add much to my studying? Probably not. I will wait another week or two and see how I feel then. My gut tells me that I have all the material I need and this, while it might be helpful, is not necessary in my circumstances. Maybe I should drive cross town and try to steal one from the author. 😉

GeoLeoX · Jan 14, 2008

yaah said:
Sigh. I have the old one. Am tempted to bite the bullet and buy the new one also. SIGH. My dissuading factor is that I have the old one and other review material, so is it really going to add much to my studying? Probably not. I will wait another week or two and see how I feel then. My gut tells me that I have all the material I need and this, while it might be helpful, is not necessary in my circumstances. Maybe I should drive cross town and try to steal one from the author. 😉

All the good press about the book is based on the first edition, warts (or mistakes) and all. The new edition is expanded in almost all the sections with slightly better images (still black and white)/graphics. There are still mistakes, mostly typos/printing issues, but many of the ones from the previous have been corrected (there is a good thread about the mistakes out there somewhere).

Here's the kicker: ASCP will provide updates online to the text, presumably adding information/correcting mistakes, etc. to those who purchase.

DrBloodmoney · Jan 14, 2008

I've read the first chapter and there are two factual mistakes that I noticed (excess GH causes acromegaly in children and gigantism in adults and evaluating for presence of CSF with electrophoresis to find the twin transfusion (should be transferrin) peaks and prealbumin) plus a few typographical errors and one mislabeling of the title of a table. Much better error rate than the first edition.

New clinical compendium can now be ordered from the ASCP

Member

Member

Boring

Pathology

Member

Junior Member

Boring

Member

Thing

Boring

Member

New Member

you can pay me in bud

Junior Member

Member

Member

you can pay me in bud

Pathology

rock chalk jayhawk

Full Member

Member

Full Member

Boring

Ancient

Pathology

Similar threads