b&w vs brs path

[DOapplicant]

---

Members don't see this ad.

i've spent more time over the course of the year w/brs path and it seems like the gold standard (even got an 'A' in FA), but i've recently become very impressed with boards and wards- lots of really good pics and also all the relevant Dx, Tx, and Sx to help w/ putting the path in clin context.

what do you guys think? i've very tempted to do both. but i've been strongly advised to lt. myself to only one resource per subject.

 

[Thaitanium]

IMO, Boards and Wards is geared more towards Step 2. I have been reviewing BRS Path. I would use the time you would have spent in reading BW doing questions and more questions. If you've gone through BRS enough, then why go through another book?

 

[neilc]

are you talking about pathophys for boards and wards? i think that was a good one...i would prob pick it over BRS path, but it would be a tough choice. either one is great.

if you mean boards and wards, it is more geared for step 2, and i would pick BRS over it for step 1....

 

[DOapplicant]

yea, i meant pathophys for boards and wards for step1. sorry, i should have been more sp.
thanks for your opinion. did you find all the extra clinical material to be highly tested material or did you just like the format better?
i going through both now. but once classes, i'm going to pick just one.

 

[neilc]

i liked it because it was more integrated (hence the name, pathophys) which was pretty high yeild. i do remember quite a few straight phys questions and a sig number of straight path, but the majority were more clinical.

i

 

[Wrigleyville]

See if you can get a hold of goljan's pathology review (stars). It is very readable, and provides some nuances and mechanisms that are missing or not explained in BRS. I plan on using both for the boards.