Approach to Step 1 for Topics you didn't Learn the First Time Around?

[cobaltgreen]

---

Members don't see this ad.

There are a couple of classes that I just didn't do so hot in--I really don't feel comfortable just reviewing...though I know I can't get sucked into learning every detail and wasting tons of time...

ugggh. What to do? Review books seem too sparse and would require me to just memorize...

 

[harrisonIM]

It really depends on what topics you are talking about. Biochem, physio, path, pharm? In general, what I did was use the review text and if I was shaky on my understanding then I would go to a more comprehensive reference text. Then I would do problems related to that topic to drill home the important concepts.

Example: I went through Goljan GI disorders. I thought I was a little weak with bowel cancers so I read Robbin's to get a bigger picture (not to read for details). Then I did questions from Robbin's Review and BSS to drive home the major diseases.

Good luck with your studies.

 

[LadyWolverine]

Agreed - it depends on the subject. If you want more than just "review":

Biochem? Lippincott.
Cell/Molecular? HY is sufficient.
Neuro? HY is sufficient.
Embryo? Langman's.
Physio? BRS, BRS, BRS x 1000.
Micro? Clinical micro made ridic simple.
Immuno? That little book by abbas is simply wonderful.
Behavioral sci/epid? HY is sufficient.
Pharm? Pharmcards are probably sufficient; supplement with Lippincott or Katzung PRN.

Path: read goljan's RR from cover-to-cover a few times. Supplement with Robbins if you really need it.

Make sure you exhaust a QBank - I recommend USMLEWorld. Buy FA and annotate like it's your j-o-b.

This was my reading/to do list for Step 1. In retrospect I wish I had spent more time with CMMRS and HY neuro - I ran out of time towards the end and didn't really spend enough time on these 2 subjects. To be totally honest, I didn't completely exhaust my UW questions, either. But I had the same concerns as you - there was some stuff that I never covered during 1st or 2nd year on step 1, and even more stuff that I'd only seen once and/or wasn't comfortable with. So, I read more than just review books - I actually went back and read some heavier material.

It took a little longer to slog through the reading, and my days were pretty miserable for about 6 weeks, but doing the reading, annotating FA, and then backing it up with UW questions really helped solidify the material in my head. And once I had finished a topic (which included reading text/review book, annotating/FA, and exhausting the Qs on a subject in my qbank), I didn't need to go back and look at it again; I just moved on to the next subject.

This method probably isn't good for everyone, but it worked out for me. I passed Step 1 and I never have to take it again. 🙂

 

[jackets5]

Personally, like RR phys better than BRS. Also for Neuro not sure whether to use RR or HY (Neuro has been my weakest subject in first two years) RR is comparable lenght especially if you skip 2 or 3 of the chapters that go in depth to the embyology, neuro exam and neurocytogenics etc. chapters that are not in HY. goo choices of review books.

Also isnt the Abbas Immuno book more of a text then a review book?

 

[cobaltgreen]

neuro and anatomy are my weaknesses...i think i am just not a great memorizer of these systems. my localizations stink in neuro. do you guys just memorize these cold? example--wallenberg syndrome --signs/symptoms/ nuclei affected...or just recognize it.

so--i just need to focus on NOT getting to detailed--stick to review books with necessary supplementation.

gosh- will be hard to go into a qbank--miss questions--and then fight that latent perfectionist desire to try to learn everything i didn't learn in class.

either way--thanks, guys.

 

[LadyWolverine]

Also isnt the Abbas Immuno book more of a text then a review book?

Yes, it's a text. But that's what the OP was asking for - sources other than review books that would help fill-in-the-blanks for stuff (s)he didn't get adequate exposure to in school.

The Abbas book is succinct but thorough, divided into logical sections with great illustrations and clinicial correclations. And, compared to most "standard" immunology textbooks, it's TINY. You don't get much closer to "short and sweet" than that. I have a graduate degree in immunology and am familiar with Janeway from cover-to-cover, but I found the Abbas book to be somewhat superior from a purely Step 1 review/clinical prep standpoint.

 

[PenguinHead]

There are a couple of classes that I just didn't do so hot in--I really don't feel comfortable just reviewing...though I know I can't get sucked into learning every detail and wasting tons of time...

ugggh. What to do? Review books seem too sparse and would require me to just memorize...

I used Wikipedia. Seriously.

For instance, if I had not learned neuroanatomy well the first time around, I would start out in FA/RR/Whatever and when I got to things I didn't understand, I would quickly look it up on Wikipedia, make a note in my book, and move on.

Constantly referencing texts books would have bogged me down.

 

[Darkshooter326]

Then know that anatomy is NOT heavily weighted on the test, and go from there, learning mainly what is in FA. Neuro is important, so learn it well.

neuro and anatomy are my weaknesses...i think i am just not a great memorizer of these systems. my localizations stink in neuro. do you guys just memorize these cold? example--wallenberg syndrome --signs/symptoms/ nuclei affected...or just recognize it..

 

[Jwax]

I used Wikipedia. Seriously.

For instance, if I had not learned neuroanatomy well the first time around, I would start out in FA/RR/Whatever and when I got to things I didn't understand, I would quickly look it up on Wikipedia, make a note in my book, and move on.

Constantly referencing texts books would have bogged me down.

👍 I like that idea. I 😍 wiki. Despite how often it is criticized as being an inaccurate source, I actually haven't seen anything on wiki that wasn't stated in my syllabus/text/lecture notes. I have a hard time seeing how it will be helpful for memorizing the bane of my existence (biochem).

 

[igottaquestion]

Costanzo's _physiology_ is great if you need a bigger resource for phys. Same person who writes BRS phys, so it aligns very well with more explanation.

 

[Captopril]

👍 I like that idea. I 😍 wiki. Despite how often it is criticized as being an inaccurate source, I actually haven't seen anything on wiki that wasn't stated in my syllabus/text/lecture notes. I have a hard time seeing how it will be helpful for memorizing the bane of my existence (biochem).

I recently joined a site called "Medpedia" which is supposed to be a medicine-only editable encyclopedia. I wasn't really impressed with their articles though; I think Wiki is still the best readily available source on the net.

 

[TracksuitsRock]

Agreed - it depends on the subject. If you want more than just "review":

Biochem? Lippincott.

The only warning I would give on Lippincott for biochem is that I know several people who in retrospect felt they WAY overdid it with Lippincott. Make sure if you use it that you kind of use FA as a guide as to what topics you need to understand. I wholeheartedly agree that you need a text in order to make heads or tails of the brief outlines in FA Biochem, but don't go overboard! Biochem is so awful, I feel like it just kills everyone's morale and it's so hard, especially if you didn't learn it the first time (which I did not).