Brs Path

[jbloggs]

---

Members don't see this ad.

BRS Pathology seems pretty solid. Do you think it has every single detail that we would need to know for Path for Step I? Most of the times I miss a qbank question in path, I go back and look in BRS Path and the answer was in there.

 

[Atlas]

BRS Pathology seems pretty solid. Do you think it has every single detail that we would need to know for Path for Step I? Most of the times I miss a qbank question in path, I go back and look in BRS Path and the answer was in there.

I think you just answered your question.

 

[jbloggs]

I was trying to gather other people's thoughts on this? Do other people feel the same way? Can we feel safe putting 100% faith in BRS Path, or is this not sufficient?

 

[Arnold Chiari]

I was trying to gather other people's thoughts on this? Do other people feel the same way? Can we feel safe putting 100% faith in BRS Path, or is this not sufficient?

I am using BRS as my primary source, with "Pathophys for the Boards and Wards" to accompany it. I find that "Pathophys" is largely BRS rehashed, as if the authors just retyped some of the sections and put their name on it. However, sometimes they do put in something new that is more clinically oriented than what appears in BRS. For those not so seldom instances I think using the two sources in conjuncture is good.

Especially good are the flowcharts that appear at the end of some of the chapters in "pathophys," like assessing a patient with an acid base-disorder, or hyponatremia, or hyperkalemia, or something like that.

hope that helps,
Arnold Chiari