Big Robbins 8th edition

[TGAmed]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Apparantly, the latest edition of Robbins has arrived. Does anyone have any idea what kind of reviews its getting in comparison to the 7th edition (2004)?

 

[Mortal_Lessons]

Apparantly, the latest edition of Robbins has arrived. Does anyone have any idea what kind of reviews its getting in comparison to the 7th edition (2004)?

Arrived? The book's web-page on Elsevier states that its publication date is June 2009. I'm referring to the Pathologic Basis of Disease, not Basic Pathology. While on the subject, what's the difference between the two? It's always been my understanding that the Basis of Disease was the authoritative text on disease. I've enjoyed the Robbins' family so much I might purchase the 8th edition even though I already own the 7th.

 

[Tiger26]

Oooo . . . I've just been on tip-toes since the 7th edition came out . . . 😴

 

[badasshairday]

I got the 5th edition for 50 cents from my school's library. They sell old editions to clear there shelves for newer stuff and I guess I got lucky... How much do you think path has changed from the 5th edition to the 7th edition?

 

[Re3iRtH]

I got the 5th edition for 50 cents from my school's library. They sell old editions to clear there shelves for newer stuff and I guess I got lucky... How much do you think path has changed from the 5th edition to the 7th edition?

With all the new genetic research and characterization of disease
out in the last only 5 to 10 years, I'd say a lot.

 

[Yakko]

Pathologic Basis of Disease is pretty much the authoritative text. But Basic Pathology is the one that you might actually be able to retain information from. (I went with the latter + Goljan)

 

[badasshairday]

With all the new genetic research and characterization of disease
out in the last only 5 to 10 years, I'd say a lot.

Yeah, but the big picture is the same. The new stuff is more detail than necessary don't you think?

 

[248934]

Most people I know in medical school want the newest editions simply so that they "miss out" on any new material. That's valid, but for the most part, pathology hasn't changed much, at least in print, over the last few years.

I'm sure you'd do fine with an older Robbin's. I've noticed that the newer ones just had a little more colorful diagrams and some rearranged chapters. Even if your lecturers referenced only the newer edition's pages, you could probably figure out the corresponding parts.

 

[illixir]

At my school, the big Robbins is what the medical students use since its more comprehensive and is focused on all human diseases and the Basic Pathology or baby Robbins as we call it is what the graduate pathology students use(though I'm a first year and that is what I am own incidentally, though I definately study the big robbins online on mdconsult for lots of my studying and I may buy this new Robbins for board prep next year since I don't have a copy). All the chapters match up between the two though and it's really the same material from one to another with a difference in a few hundred pages, and for the brunt of boards studying either of any edition in the last 10 years is sufficient, though there are definately gradations.

 

[bodonid]

oh, no... I bought mine early b/c it was a good deal... didn't expect a new edition.

I found a copy of the 1st edition a couple days ago. Even thicker back then, if you believe that!