Errors in Quick Compendium of Clinical Pathology and Companion

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

GeoLeoX

Ancient
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2000
Messages
754
Reaction score
2
This comes up every year as 4th years start to prepare in earnest for the spring board exam. Thanks to many people in this forum (you know who you are), myself and forum member Dr. Bloodmoney put together a list of errors in the Quick Compendium of Clinical Pathology. This list has been forwarded to the ASCP Press who assure me that subsequent printings of the book will have these errors expunged. I have had to edit this list several times, so if I accidentally deleted something I wouldn't be surprised, but it should be fairly complete.

Then I wrote the Companion book. Again forum members came to my aid and along with some of the senior residents in my residency program I composed a list of the errors/misprints/etc. in the Companion book. These have also been forwarded to ASCP Press.

The following are our lists. Please feel free to contribute, it helps us all.

Geo

Quick Compendium of Clinical Pathology, 2nd Edition

p. 2 - sentence reads "An assay that does not utilize NADH/NAD is that used to measure alkaline phosphatase", doesn't make sense.

p. 5 (column I) - "Page Disease" instead of Paget Disease.

p. 11 (column I) - "ensitive" instead of sensitive.

p. 12 (column I) - very end of column, "CKCK isoform ratios" should be "CK/CK isoform ratios"

p. 21 (Fig. 1.7) There are two Fig1.7c figures. It is stated in the second one "F1.7C(lambda) acute inflammation pattern" and should instead read "F1.7D acute inflammation pattern"

p. 23 (column I) - under tubular proteinuria pattern "results form" should be "results from"

p. 25 (T1.8) "Primary Hyperparathroidism" should be "Primary Hyperparathyroidism"

p. 26 (column II) - clinical presentation, bullet #2 "hyperphasphatemia" should be "hyperphosphatemia"

p. 29 (column I) - "Henderson-Hasselbach" should be spelled "Henderson-Hasselbalch". Also, technically, pK in the formula should be pKa.

p. 32 (column II) - "Tamm-Harsfall" should be "Tamm-Horsfall"

p. 33 (column I) - first bullet "andis not sensitive" should be "and is not sensitive"

p. 33 (column I) - second bullet - "Hook effect" should be "hook effect". The aforementioned "hook" is not eponymous, but rather refers to the graphed appearance of the paradoxical downward slope of the saturation curve when substrate concentration exceeds that of the detecting agent.

p. 34 (column I) - "FENA" should be "FENa"

p. 37 (column I) - first line "hCG in spontaneous abortion" should be formatted as a subject heading.

p. 37 (column I) - third bullet under hCG in gestational trophoblastic disease ""HCG" should be "hCG"

p. 40 (column II) bottom of the page - "systemic lupus erythrematosis" should be "...erythrematosus"

p. 43 (T1.18) "morphine" should be "heroin". then, the heroin metabolite should be "6-acetylmorphine", rather than "N-acetylmorphine"

p. 45 (column I) - barbituates don't have a significant role in the stimulation of GABA release. Rather they function by binding to the GABA receptor Cl- channel and facilitate the effects of GABA. Benzodiazepine drugs also bind to the GABA receptor and facilitate the opening of the Cl- channel. Barbituates work by keeping the channel open longer at a time, while benzos work by opening the channel more frequently. At high doses barbituates may directly stimulate the channel in the absence of GABA ligand.

p. 47 (column I) - "calculation of osmolal gap" should be "calculation of osmolar gap". Typically, the serum osmolality (osmoles/kg) is measured and osmolarity (osmoles/L) is calculated. In the context of the human body osmolality and osmolarity are roughly equivalent because the density of water (the major solvent) is 1 kg/L.

p. 49 (column II) - lead poisoning "delta (triangle) - ALA-dehydratase" should be a lower case delta.

p. 50 (column I) - laboratory methods "greater than or equal to 10 g/dL" should be "... 10 micrograms/dL". Similarly, "lead levels below 35 mg/dL" should be "...35 micrograms/dl"

p. 51 (column I) CO Poisoning - "it is produced endogenously from only one source: the breakdown heme." should be "....source: the breakdown of heme."

p. 57 - text states "G measurement, like total cholesterol" should read "TG measurement, like total cholesterol"

p. 60 (column I) "...and age >45 years for men and >55 years for women" should be "<45 years for men and <55 years for women"

p. 62 - table 1.29 should be titled "Hypoglycemia"

p. 63 (T1.30) "Lipoprotein Classes" should be "Glucose Intolerance Diagnosis" or something along those lines.

p. 70 (column II) CA27.29 (15-3). "trantuzumab" should be "trastuzumab"

p. 73 (column I) Markers of paraganglioma and pheochromocytoma - "vanillymandelic acid" should be "vanillylmandelic acid"

p. 76 (column I) hypothyroidism first bullet - "131I" is usually written as "I-131". "a-IFN" should be "[lower case Greek alpha]-IFN"

p. 80 - growth hormone excess causes gigantism in children and acromegaly in adults. The text states the opposite.

p. 81 (column I) bottom of page "b-endorphin" should be "[lower case Greek beta]-endorphin"

p. 83 (column II) protein "Tamm-Harsfall" should be "Tamm-Horsfall"

p. 87 - text states "typical twin transfusion peak". Should be "typical twin transferrin peak"

p. 88 (column I) pleural fluid chemistry "Meig Syndrome" should be "Meigs Syndrome"

p. 89 (T1.40) "Gross Appearance" is unnecessarily bold and there is no column header in the cell above.

p. 104 - text states hyperventilation causes hypercapnea. Should be hyperventilation causes hypocapnea.

p. 105 - table should indicate history of babesiosis OR Chagas.

p. 110 - Table 2.5 Rh Nomenclature - it is more helpful to list the Fisher-Race nomenclature as DCE, rather than CDE.
That being said, R0 should be Dce, not cDE
Rz should be DCE, not CDe
ry should be dCE, not Cde

p. 112 - under Lewis-related genes - text states "...while type 2 is only found on the red cell surface. There is no type 2 oligosaccharide on the red cell surface". It should state "There is no type 1 oligosaccharide..."

p. 113 (T2.8) - "Hi Genes" should be "H Genes", selection #8 has "ee" under Secretor Genes, should be "se"

p. 114 (column II) Kell antigens, 3rd bullet - "...is associated with shortened red blood cell survival, reduced deformability, and shortened survival" is confusing.

p. 116 (column I) HLA "See Chapter 7 for additional information", should be "See Chapter 6 for additional information"

p. 118 (column I) paragraph beginning "Clinical significance of detected antibodies" should be bold and italicized.

p. 121 (T2.11 #8) "autoconrol" should be "autocontrol"

p. 122 (column I) second bullet under "other unusual findings" "hus" should be "thus".

p. 125 "neonatal alloimmune thrombocytopenia" should be "neonatal alloimmune thrombocytopenic purpura (NATP)"

p. 130 (column II) "the shelf-life a washed red cells" should be "the shelf life of washed red cells"

p. 132 (column I) "Prevention of platelet-transmitted infection" should be bold and italicized.

"...required by AABB that a methods be" should be "...AABB that methods be..."

p. 132 uncer Granulocyte concentrates "Indications and Contraindications" should be bold and italicized.

p. 128-135 = a pervasive problem and also throughout several other sections of the book - there is no formatting consensus for the subheadings under each product - some are bold, some bold and italicized, some are neither.

p. 140 "Blood group antigens" placed in the middle of the page for no apparent reason

several pages - "N. meningitidis" is spelled "N. meningitides" throughout the chapter (e.g. p.157, column I bottom)

p. 164 (T3.4) - adenovirus has a superfluous "+" following it.

p. 165 bullet column I reference to T3.6 should be T3.5

p. 165 - Table 3.7 - lists papovaviruses as RNA viruses (should be DNA), picornaviruses as DNA viruses (should be RNA), rhabdoviridae is printed twice.

p. 168 (T3.9) incorrectly formatted in middle.

p. 185 sputum "Pneumocystis pneumoniae" is not an organism - "Pneumocystis carinii (jiroveci)" is the causative agent of PCP.

p. 197 (column I) echinococcus 1st bullet - unfinished sentence

p. 201 - Table 3.24 some of the descriptions are incorrect - "Mold form shows thick-walled yeasts with broad-based budding" - makes no sense. "Mold form shows mariner's wheel configuration", should be "yeast form shows mariner's wheel configuration".

p. 203 - Figure 3.15 lists "E. gypseum", should be "M. gypseum"

p. 242 (column I) - manual techniques - " 1 fL = 1 (subic microliter) = 10^-15 L" should read " 1 fL = 10^-9 microliter = 10^-15 L"

p. 242 (column II) - the red blood cell count (RBC) 3rd bullet "between 36 & 360 fL as red cells" should read "...with a volume between 36 & 360 fL..."

p. 243 (F4.1) - the axes may be reversed

p. 249 (column II) - bullets 5 & 6 - CD11b is NOT associated with Hairy cell leukemia. CD11c is.

p. 250 3rd bullet - the sentence is confusingly written and could be easily misinterpreted

p. 252 - Table 4.3 time needed and sensitivity blocks are reversed - PCR is faster and more sensitive.

p. 264 (T4.8) is all wrong - Beta-thalassemia syndromes

p. 266 - under pathologic cold agglutinins - states, "It may have anti-I, anti-i, anti-IH, anti-IH or anti-Pr specificity", should read "It may have anti-I, anti-i, anti-H, anti-IH, or anti-Pr specificity".

p. 267 top of column II - "...capacity to produce hemolysis only when incubated @ 2 different temperatures in vitro" - not true - binds at cold temperature and lyses at warm.

p. 284 - t(1;14) translocation is IgH- BCL10, not MALT1-IgH

p. 284 - Figure 4.10 flow cytometry has two CD5 v. CD19 plots - the one on the left is not follicular lymphoma, the one on the right could be. The caption mentions "Note coexpression of CD38 and CD10" but there is no CD38 v. CD10 plot.

p. 284 - MZL, under Molecular: text states "The t(1;14) translocation results in MALT1-IgH gene fusion". The text should read either "The t(1;14) translocation results in a bcl10-IgH gene fusion" or "The t(14;18) translocation results in the MALT1-IgH gene fusion". Both translocations are associated with MZL.

p.288 - text states "...Ig lambda (2p12) or IgK (22q11)". It should read "IgK (2p12) or Ig lambda (22q11)"

p. 294 - ATCL CD listed as both + and -

p. 296 - LGL diagnosis should be made with > 2 x 10^9 LGL/L

p. 297 Classical Hodgkin lymphoma is listed as a subheading of nodular lymphocyte predominant Hodgkind lymphoma, which it is NOT. It's more of a formatting problem, but could lead to misinterpretation.

p. 297-8 - the bulleting organization of the Hodgkins lymphoma is off, making it very confusing.

p. 302 (T4.29) - criteria for essential thrombocytosis should read platelets > or equal to 600 x 10^9/L

p. 332 (column I) - second bullet - lists causes of prolonged PTT, but normal PT "factors XII, XI, IX, VII" - deficiency of Factor VII will present with normal PTT, but prolonged PT. It should read "factors XII, XI, IX, VIII"

p. 389 (column I) - three steps of PCR listed as "denaturation, replication, then annealing" implies the sequential nature of a PCR reaction and should then read "denaturation, annealing, then extension or elongation".

p. 389 (column I) style issue - spectral karyotyping is most commonly referred to by the acronym "SKY" rather than "SKI"

p. 390 (column I) - description of Southern blotting is unclear and wrong.

p. 393 (column I) - Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium equation reads "p2 + 2pq + q2 = 1" should read "p2 + 2pq + q2 = 1". It is an binomial expansion of (p+q)2=1. If the formatting cannot be read it should be p(squared) + 2pq +q(squared) = 1.

p. 394 (column I) - Hereditary Cancer & Tumor Syndromes reads "...may be suspected based upon (1)... (2)... (2)...", should read "(1)... (2)... (3)..."

p. 394 (column II) - Turcot's Syndrome is listed as related to Lynch Syndrome (HNPCC). This is not true - Turcot's is related to familial adenosis polyposis and mutation of the APC gene.

p. 402 (column II) and Table 7.3 (p.403) The section heading and the table heading read "Applications of molecular studies in nonneoplastic disease" it should be "Applications of molecular studies in neoplastic disease"

p. 402 (column I) "manifestations iclude (sic)" should be "manifestations include"

p. 406 (column I) "<26 GAG repeats" should be "<26 CAG repeats"

p. 411 (column I) "The most common disease-causing mutation is delta508" - unfortunately I cannot use symbols with Google documents - the printed text uses lower case delta and should use upper case (the little triangle) - also on Table 7.5, p. 412 (column I)

p. 412 (column I, bottom) - the reference for Table 7.5 is placed after a description of the infections associated with cystic fibrosis. The reference should be placed at the end of the first paragraph, p. 411 (column I)

p. 423 T7.11 - "crit du chat" should be "cri du chat"

- CHARGE sequence "colomba" should be "coloboma"

p. 423 (column I) - "are considered permutations" should be "premutations"

p. 424 (column I) - "a fetoprotein" should be "alpha-fetoprotein"

p. 424 (column II) - "Nimmegen" should be "Nijmegen". it is spelled correctly at the subject heading, but not in the paragraph following.

p. 425 (column II) - under MELAS "interstingly" should be "interestingly"

p. 443 (column I) - Under the 1/3 rule states "Eg" should be "E.g." or "e.g."

Quick Compendium Companion for Clinical Pathology
note - numbers refer to question/answer numbers not page #s like above.

Chapter 1

1. answer should read "Rate of enzyme activity varies linearly with substrate concentration UNTIL enzyme is fully saturated.”

23. should be "in vivo half life" instead of in vitro.

29. There are two Cs in the answer choices. (print only)

43. Choices A and D are identical; it's not really a mistake because both serous cystadenomas and solid-cystic tumors have identical amylase/CEA/CA19-9 pattern, but it's unusual to have two identical answer choices. Also extra “A” in question (at least online version)

78. 'hyperparthyroidism' should be “hyperparathyroidism”.


83. Choice B and the explanation. pH of 7.0. Everywhere pH 7.0 is (in both the question (choices B and C) and the explanation) it should be replaced by pH 7.40, such as “the general range is 7.40 to 7.44“


98. explanation: 'rhabomyolysis' should be “rhabdomyolysis”

143. The explanation states: 'The legal limits (of ethanol) vary by state, but are typically in the range of 0.8-1.0%” should say “.08-0.1%”

146. The math is wrong. The answer should be 140x2 + 10/2.5 + 180/18 = 294. Change choice E in the question stem and answer to 294 mOsm/L and correct the misplaced decimal point in the formula, which should state “..”180/18” rather than “180/1.8”.

179. Last word of answer explanation should be months not weeks.

184. Choice B should read “classical symptoms of diabetes and casual plasma glucose greater than 150 mg/dL.”

206. answer explanation "Normetanephrine is metabolized to normetanephrine" should read “norepinephrine is metabolized to normetanephrine”.


209. 'Hyperthyroidism' in the question stem should be replaced with 'hypothyroidism'.

Chapter 2

67. explanation states: 'While both Factor V and Factor VII are labile in vitro, Factor VII is most labile in vivo.' It should say: 'While both Factor V and Factor VIII are labile in vitro, Factor VII is most labile in vivo.'



79. Which of the following indications is an appropriate usage of irradiated products?

A. cellular products to immunocompromised hosts
B. granulocyte concentrates to prevent neutropenic sepsis
C. prevention of alloimmunization in platelets
D. red blood cells to prevent CMV transmission
E. red blood cells to prevent recurrent febrile nonhemolytic transfusion reactions

A. cellular products to immunocompromised hosts.

The only clear indication for irradiation is to prevent transfusion-associated graft v. host disease. By irradiating white blood cells, they are rendered incapable of engrafting in an immunocompromised host. Irradiated products do not prevent CMV transmission, alloimmunization, or recurrent febrile non-hemolytic transfusion reactions, like leukoreduction does. Furthermore, while irradiation of granulocyte products is indicated to prevent graft v. host the irradiation does not prevent sepsis directly.

Chapter 3

39. Choice B in the question should be “E. coli” rather than “gram negative anaerobes”. Also the online answer lacks the complete answer. It should state “C. N. meningitidis”.


53. explanation should read "Coag-negative staph"


71. question stem should have 'except'.



* 91. in explanation, answer reads "B. the period between the disappearance of HBsAg and appearance of HBcAb.", but should read "... appearance of HBsAb"



* 181. question should be reworded from:

Which of the following dematiaceous molds is responsible for chromoblastomycosis?

A. Fonseca
B. Phialophora
C. Cladosporiom
D. Wangiella
E. Exophiala

to:

Which of the following dematiaceous molds is responsible for chromoblastomycosis?

A. Fonseca
B. Phialophora
C. Cladosporium
D. A & B
E. A, B, C

also, in the explanation "dematiaceous" is misspelled.

* 187. The question should read "Which of the following stains the cell wall of cryptococcus?"

* 196. The explanation should be changed to:

B. white.

MacConkey agar is both selective for gram-negative organisms and differential for lactose fermenters v. non-lactose fermenters. The lactose non-fermenters appear as white colonies, and include organisms such as Pseudomonas, Serratia, and Burkholderia

* 229. question: "What is the optimal growth temperature for Pseudomonas?" should be changed to "Growth at which of the following temperatures helps differentiate Pseudomonas aeruginosa" from most other species of Pseudomonas? and the explanation should be changed to:
"Pseudomonas aeruginosa can grow at a temperature that would induce the expression of heat-shock proteins in most other bacteria. Despite the wide temperature growth range for Pseudomonas, P. putida and P. fluorescens will not grow at 42°C."

Chapter 4

* 74. Question choice A "--/-alpha" should be "--/alpha alpha"

* 75. Question choice C "lot Hct" should be "low Hct"

* 98. Explanation reads "...coated with antibodies rather than delivered to ..." and should be changed to "...coated with antibodies then delivered to..."

* 112. Explanation reads "...as neutropenia with affecting lymphocyte production..." and should be changed to "...as neutropenia without affecting lymphocyte production..." Also, Kostmann is misspelled as "Kostmannn" throughout the explanation (at least in the electronic version).

Chapter 5

43. type 2N is best considered autosomal recessive, not dominant, as the answer indicates. The correct answer should be A. autosomal recessive and the explanation should reflect that, i.e. the last word in the answer explanation should be “recessive”.

Chapter 6

50. explanation should read "All are associated with drug-induced lupus, which in turn is highly associated with anti-nuclear and anti-histone antibodies.

51. last line of explanation should read "activate cellular immunity", rather than “active cellular immunity”.

Chapter 7

* 25. Answer written as "B. 85%." should be "C. 85%"

* 45. Explanation is confusing. It reads "Birt-Hogg-Dube is not associated with pseudohermaphroditism and renal tumors, but Denys-Drash syndrome is.", but is probably better stated as "Birt-Hogg-Dube is not associated with the combination of pseudohermaphroditism and renal tumors, but Denys-Drash syndrome is.", since BHD is associated with renal tumors, but not associated with pseudohermaphroditism.

* 60. Explanation reads "...with Ewing sarcoma is t(11;22)(q24;a12)." and should read "...with Ewing sarcoma is t(11;22)(q24;q12)."

* 63. In the answer "Beckwith-Weidemann" should be spelled "Beckwith-Wiedemann"

* 65. The question is wrong. Currently it reads:
Synovial sarcoma is associated with the translocation t(X;18) resulting in a SYT-SSX fusion. Which of the following statements is correct?

A. SYT-SSX2 is associated more with biphasic synovial sarcoma
B. SYT-SSX1 is associated more with monophasic synovial sarcoma
C. SYT-SSX2 is associated more with monophasic synovial sarcoma
D. SYT-SSX1 is associated more with biphasic synovial sarcoma
E. none of the above are true

and should be changed to:

Synovial sarcoma is associated with the translocation t(X;18) resulting in a SYT-SSX fusion. Which of the following statements is correct?

A. SYT-SSX1 is associated more with biphasic synovial sarcoma
B. SYT-SSX2 is associated more with monophasic synovial sarcoma
C. SYT-SSX1 is associated more with monophasic synovial sarcoma
D. A & B
E. A, B, C
and the answer will be "D. A & B." Same explanation.

* 72. Explanation states "Normal (unaffected non-carrier) individuals usually have more than 26 CAG repeats..." but should read "Normal (unaffected non-carrier) individuals usually have less than 26 CAG repeats"

* 125. Explanation states ""loss of parental DNA leads to Prader-Willi" it should be "loss of paternal DNA leads to Prader-Willi"

Members don't see this ad.
 
Most of those are just typos and hardly worth mentioning (i.e. ensitive for sensitive). If anyone gets confuse and thinks the author really means ensitive, then they probably don't deserve to be in community college let alone being a board certified pathologist.

Just stick to posting truly incorrect information, like if it said the TSH is high in primary hyperthyroidism or something like that.

Most of that stuff you posted is bullshat.

BUt having said that, one wonders if the author or ASCP proofreads their publications.
 
Most of those are just typos and hardly worth mentioning (i.e. ensitive for sensitive). If anyone gets confuse and thinks the author really means ensitive, then they probably don't deserve to be in community college let alone being a board certified pathologist.

Just stick to posting truly incorrect information, like if it said the TSH is high in primary hyperthyroidism or something like that.

Most of that stuff you posted is bullshat.

BUt having said that, one wonders if the author or ASCP proofreads their publications.

Really?

First of all, you're welcome.

Second of all, this list was meant to be a complete collection of the mistakes in the QCCP2 and Companion, most of which are typos.

Wonder no more - As "the author" of the Companion I can tell you that I do proofread, as does the ASCP, and a few people I could gather to help me out. However, many of the mistakes came from printing errors that are not in the galley.

Relax. The factual errors are in there. If you don't like it and think it's "bullshat" don't read it.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Thanks for reposting this!

Errors or not, the compendium is a great book, that I use all the time. I've tried repeatedly to read Henry's, but it is way too tedious.
 
Thanks for reposting!!

Has anyone formulated their "study plan" for this spring's AP/CP boards? I am waffling over how best to attack my material and will probably spend more time waffling over then best methods of study than actual studying at this rate. Any ideas would be appreciated...

As of now I am planning on going over the rememberances first (in detail), then hit some of my weak areas in AP, then hit all of CP, then hit the rest of AP quickly. But timeline, study materials, methodology (questions vs reading vs osler, etc) I haven't settled on yet...
 
Thanks for the corrections!

Question:

Page 244 F4.2a

In the citrate agar, they have hbgA moving with C harlem (and also have it going with D, G, E, etc.)

I was always taught that the latter was correct.

Explanations, anyone? Typo? (I work in a little island community where very few people have hemoglobinopathies, so I haven't read this stuff in a million years - thanks!)
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the corrections!

Question:

Page 244 F4.2a

In the citrate agar, they have hbgA moving with C harlem (and also have it going with D, G, E, etc.)

I was always taught that the latter was correct.

Explanations, anyone? Typo? (I work in a little island community where very few people have hemoglobinopathies, so I haven't read this stuff in a million years - thanks!)

in acid (citrate) C Harlem should run with S, not A, G, E, or D. C runs by itself. in alkaline C Harlem runs with C, E, O and A2.
 
you guys should of seen this thing before we got to proofreading it...

i mean, no lie... this was the title:

Quik Kompenduum or Klinikal Pathalogy
 
Really?

First of all, you're welcome.

Second of all, this list was meant to be a complete collection of the mistakes in the QCCP2 and Companion, most of which are typos.

Wonder no more - As "the author" of the Companion I can tell you that I do proofread, as does the ASCP, and a few people I could gather to help me out. However, many of the mistakes came from printing errors that are not in the galley.

Relax. The factual errors are in there. If you don't like it and think it's "bullshat" don't read it.

I'm just saying that most people would realize that ensitive is not a word and just a typo without having it pointed out. Out of curiosity, how lucrative is that book? Good for you for writing it.

I remember that the guy that wrote the "First Aid" series dropped out of medicine after his UCSF radiology residency. That must be very lucrative given he could have easily making 800,000 a year as a private practice radiologist.
 
Last edited:
I'm just saying that most people would realize that ensitive is not a word and just a typo without having it pointed out. Out of curiosity, how lucrative is that book? Good for you for writing it.

I would hope that all people would realize that "ensitive" is not a word. That wasn't the point. I am simply sharing the document that I sent (or "ent") to ASCP as a point-by-point complete listing of the errors that need correction in subsequent printings. I wasn't about to go through the whole thing to distill the obvious from non-obvious errors.

And it is certainly not sufficiently lucrative to give up my day job. As a matter of fact for the amount of work I put into it during "my" time (evenings/weekends off duty) I barely got compensated at an equivalent rate to what I was getting paid as a resident or attending during the day.
 
Thanks GeoLeoX. I appreciate your work.
 
I found a few more typos/errors in the Quick Compendium.

p.185 (column I) under Protozoa, next to Amebae (sarcodinia), there is no F3.5. F3.4 is the HIV western blot then it skips to F 3.6 of Flagellates.

p.213 (column II) second bullet under Gram staining, "basic fuchsin can be used to counter-stain weakly stainining" is misspelled.

p.215 (T3.29) Clostridium difficile is in the table twice

p.216 (column II) in CAMP test "group B b-hemolytic streptococci" should be "[lower case Greek beta]-hemolytic.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
p. 215 T3.29 Salmonella typhi from stool – “Wison-Blair” should be “Wilson-Blair.”

p. 264 (T4.8) Beta-thalassemia syndromes – the 3 genotypes for Beta-thalassemia major are &#946;°/ &#946;°, &#946;<SUP>+</SUP>/ &#946;<SUP>+</SUP>, &#946;<SUP>+</SUP>/ &#946;°.

p. 268 (column I, first bullet) – Cryoglobulinemia is most commonly associated with MPGN type I, not type II.


<O:pp. 268 - the “T” is missing before Table 4.14 (Iron Studies in Anemia of Chronic Disease and Iron-Deficiency Anemia.<O:p</O:p


</O:p
 
p. 292 T4.26 on the Diagnostic Criteria for multiple myeloma is outdated. The criteria in the new WHO hemepath book is different.

Does anyone know if the boards will test on the old or new criteria or both?
 
p. 292 T4.26 on the Diagnostic Criteria for multiple myeloma is outdated. The criteria in the new WHO hemepath book is different.

Does anyone know if the boards will test on the old or new criteria or both?

This is always a problem. Another edition of the Quick Compendium is in the works, but unless you are the WHO book you are going to be out of date. There was the same problem with Kjeldsberg a few years ago (now updated to WHO 2008).

The best advice that I received for your question is to always learn the new criteria. The questions on the boards are supposed to be reviewed, but even if they are not you are better off knowing the most up-to-date criteria. Besides, why would you want to learn outdated criteria? If it's just to pass the boards that's not a good reason.
 
Been reading this to prep for the RISE. I've caught plenty of small mistakes, mostly spelling, but the first one to make me laugh out loud is on p. 25, in T1.8, under the Notes column, for Malignancy: "breat carcinoma"
 
small typo on page 54 - column II, 3rd bullet point under digoxin, "do" should be "to"
 
I think I found a few more errors, please correct me if I am wrong.

Page 24. MPGN type II should be Type I. EM description is of type I.

Page 48. Table T1.22 Isopropyl alcohol lists increased ketones as negative when the text on P49 lists them as elevated. I believe the table should be Positive.

Page 54. Organic mercury paragraph states that INorganic mercury readily crosses the placenta. Should be just "organic mercury"

Page 54. Right side, 4th paragraph from bottom "do" should be "to"

Page 55. End of 1st paragraph on Phenytoin ends with "quinidine." It should be Phenytoin
 
Last edited:
Thanks to everyone who posted this very useful list of errors and typos in the compendium. The Compendium is such a fantastic study resource and is so widely used that this list will be helpful to many residents preparing for boards. With this in mind, would all of you be ok if I also post this list on the pathology wiki (http://pathinfo.wikia.com/)? I will be certain to cite this thread and link to it (and can also include the usernames of all contributors if you guys would like). I messaged the OP (GeoLeoX) to ask his permission. He said he was fine with it personally, but he advised me to post on this thread asking for your thoughts. Please let me know if this would be ok with all of you (if any of you prefer not, then I will be sure not to add your corrections to the wiki). I just wanted to clear this with all of you first out of courtesy. Thanks again!
 
I think I found a discrepancy in the Quick Compendium:

p.143 (Table T2.20) - It says "Rh null (Bombay)".

My understanding is that those are 2 very different things. Am I correct in thinking that?

By the way, GeoLeo, thanks again for your huge contribution to the entire pathology community by working on these books. They are truly fantastic and a life saver when studying for boards!
 
p. 133 - Cryoprecipitate (left column, end of second paragraph)

States "After thawing it expires in 24 hours."

I believe this is incorrect. Cryo expires in 6 hours after thawing (or in 4 hours if it is pooled).
 
When is the 3rd edition coming out? need to know before i buy this one
 
When is the 3rd edition coming out? need to know before i buy this one

What is it with people on this forum? First they ridicule or denigrate you then in almost the same breath ask for your help?

We don't have a date for the 3rd edition yet. There will likely be another compact edition as well as a larger multi-author edition. They are both in the writing phase so it will be months before either are in print.
 
The number of mistakes and typos in the 3rd edition of the compendium is simply astonishing...I mean its a nice resource and all but weren't mistakes were a big issue with the second edition? I thought the second edition was perfect minus those mistakes...a quick and dirty review of CP in paperback form that was easy to carry with you pretty much anywhere. The third edition is really bulky, wordy, and has the above mentioned errors. Its really incredible that the ASCP can get away with this...considering the way they advertise the compendium series. I get a flyer in the mail once a month it seems advertising them. They should reprint a copy for free. I shouldn't have to go back and make this many corrections. Granted some of the mistakes are typos, quite a few of them aren't. Sorry for the rant...but its just frustrating.....
 
The number of mistakes and typos in the 3rd edition of the compendium is simply astonishing...I mean its a nice resource and all but weren't mistakes were a big issue with the second edition? I thought the second edition was perfect minus those mistakes...a quick and dirty review of CP in paperback form that was easy to carry with you pretty much anywhere. The third edition is really bulky, wordy, and has the above mentioned errors. Its really incredible that the ASCP can get away with this...considering the way they advertise the compendium series. I get a flyer in the mail once a month it seems advertising them. They should reprint a copy for free. I shouldn't have to go back and make this many corrections. Granted some of the mistakes are typos, quite a few of them aren't. Sorry for the rant...but its just frustrating.....

First of all let me tell you that I feel your pain. I am the chairman of the reference textbook committee for the ASCP. This is the same group that published the DeMay Cyto books and the Kjeldsberg Heme books - well-respected by both publishers and readers. The Quick Compendium is like the red-headed stepson to the ASCP. Since the first edition (there is no 3rd edition yet - see above) had no real pictures the ASCP went to the cheapest printer they could in order to keep the costs down. I have personally read the manuscript and galley for the 1st edition of the book and there are some factual mistakes, but the VAST majority of mistakes are typographical/print errors.

With the overwhelming success of the 1st edition there was a push to come out with an expanded 2nd edition. Realize that ASCP contracts stipulate that if you as the original writer are unable to deliver a subsequent edition of a text that they reserve the right to ask someone else to do so. The attitude that I come up against is "if it makes money there must be something right with it" which is without a doubt the most infuriating thing I as a pathologist and author myself could hear. "Good enough". I have said time and again to ASCP if the next edition is not FREE of errors the sales of not just this book, but also other titles and products of the ASCP as well as membership will suffer. People will only put forward so much good faith before they feel like they are wasting their money on a crappy product. I came on board as chairman of the committee right after the 2nd edition was published. This is the reason that I spearheaded the effort to publish ALL of the errors in the quick compendium. Not only do I feel it's my duty to set the record straight for other readers, but I wanted to show the ASCP that there is a metric a-load of errors in their title and that no self-respecting publisher would put out such a product.

As a result ASCP has begun to incorporate some of the corrections with the online version of the text. In addition they will employ another technical proofreader to ensure that the galleys are free of errors before going to the printer. The expanded version of the compendium will be a multi-author text and the new condensed (3rd) edition of the compendium will have professional proof-reading for content and typography.

Also let me say that I totally agree with you - the 1st edition was better than the 2nd. We will be trying to slim down the text to get back to the essence that the 1st edition had. Also, I would prefer to have paperback versions of all the Quick Compendium and Compendium Companion texts, but due to contractual issues with the publisher that wasn't possible.
 
Last edited:
First of all let me tell you that I feel your pain. I am the chairman of the reference textbook committee for the ASCP. This is the same group that published the DeMay Cyto books and the Kjeldsberg Heme books - well-respected by both publishers and readers. The Quick Compendium is like the red-headed stepson to the ASCP. Since the first edition (there is no 3rd edition yet - see above) had no real pictures the ASCP went to the cheapest printer they could in order to keep the costs down. I have personally read the manuscript and galley for the 1st edition of the book and there are some factual mistakes, but the VAST majority of mistakes are typographical/print errors.

With the overwhelming success of the 1st edition there was a push to come out with an expanded 2nd edition. Realize that ASCP contracts stipulate that if you as the original writer are unable to deliver a subsequent edition of a text that they reserve the right to ask someone else to do so. The attitude that I come up against is "if it makes money there must be something right with it" which is without a doubt the most infuriating thing I as a pathologist and author myself could hear. "Good enough". I have said time and again to ASCP if the next edition is not FREE of errors the sales of not just this book, but also other titles and products of the ASCP as well as membership will suffer. People will only put forward so much good faith before they feel like they are wasting their money on a crappy product. I came on board as chairman of the committee right after the 2nd edition was published. This is the reason that I spearheaded the effort to publish ALL of the errors in the quick compendium. Not only do I feel it's my duty to set the record straight for other readers, but I wanted to show the ASCP that there is a metric a-load of errors in their title and that no self-respecting publisher would put out such a product.

As a result ASCP has begun to incorporate some of the corrections with the online version of the text. In addition they will employ another technical proofreader to ensure that the galleys are free of errors before going to the printer. The expanded version of the compendium will be a multi-author text and the new condensed (3rd) edition of the compendium will have professional proof-reading for content and typography.

Also let me say that I totally agree with you - the 1st edition was better than the 2nd. We will be trying to slim down the text to get back to the essence that the 1st edition had. Also, I would prefer to have paperback versions of all the Quick Compendium and Compendium Companion texts, but due to contractual issues with the publisher that wasn't possible.


This has to be one of the most professional responses that I have ever read on this forum. The response acknowledged the problem and validated the concern. It then went on to detail the genesis of the issue and how it will be resolved in the future. Very nicely done.

Daniel Remick, M.D.
Chair and Professor of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
Boston University School of Medicine and Boston Medical Center
 
This has to be one of the most professional responses that I have ever read on this forum. The response acknowledged the problem and validated the concern. It then went on to detail the genesis of the issue and how it will be resolved in the future. Very nicely done.

I completely agree. Thanks so much for the response which helps clear up some of the issues we're having with the second edition (my mistake for calling it the 3rd edition). I actually own both the first and second editions and, as you said, really love the first edition minus the occasional errors. I also understand how these organizations (CAP, ASCP, etc.) work and that they will really push a hard line to get what they want. I suppose that's the way of the world. Nonetheless, thanks for the prompt reply and your continued efforts with the CP Compendium series are greatly appreciated.
 
That is a good response - I have heard from other authors who had similar problems with that same ASCP process - went through the manuscripts with a fine toothed comb and then when the book came out there were errors that were not in the proofs. I like your solutions, and commend you for taking steps to improve it!
 
What is it with people on this forum? First they ridicule or denigrate you then in almost the same breath ask for your help?

Yes, this forum seems to have so much negativity. However, there are also a lot of members that seem interested in contributing to the common good and helping everyone out (e.g. - GeoLeoX and others), which is one of the reasons I stay around. The Compendium was very helpful when studying for boards, so thanks GeoLeoX and all others who contributed to writing, editing, and post-publication editing (on this forum) the book.

I agree with yaah, BU Pathology, and veo1, that your reply was very professional and actually USEFUL to other readers. Thanks for setting such a great standard and example for others here to follow.
 
Last edited:
p. 210 - F3.20 Should be Geotrichum NOT Cunninghamella
 
Studying for boards and found a potential error in the Companion that I didn't see listed on other posts:

Chapter 2 (TM), Q38: Which of the following is considered "clinically significant?"
A. an antibody that causes hemolytic disease of the newborn
B. a warm reacting IgG antibody
C. a cold-reacting P antigen (should say anti-P antibody?)
D. IgM anti-ABO
E. all of the above

Listed answer is B, but answer should be E?

This is in the on-line version, don't have hard copy with me to verify if it's there too.
 
p. 173 (F3.2) The figure is misleading as it shows HBeAg spiking before HBsAg; these should be reversed. It is also misleading in that the Anti-HBc does not specify that it represents only IgM as IgM would increase (and be detected during the ‘window phase’) and then decline as opposed to Anti-HBc IgG which would stay elevated.
 
When is the 3rd edition coming out?
 
p. 109 - The description of Bombay phenotype is inaccurate as a true Bombay phenotype is the presence of the h gene with no expression of H substance on RBC's in addition to presence of the se gene which results in no H substance in the secretions either. These patients are at risk for producing a dangerous anti-H. When they have h gene and Se gene (as mentioned in the book) they should be more appropriately referred to as Para-Bombay.
 
p. 3 Competitive inhibition...while the slope, which equals Km, is increased. (not decreased)

p. 160 Glanders and Melioidosis syndromes caused by Bukholderia mallei and Burkholderia Pseudomallei, respectively. (genus name changed from Pseudomonas to Burkholderia in the 1990's)
 
p. 171 - roseola infantum is also known as SIXTH disease
 
The bump woke me up! We hope to have a new Compendium out some time this summer or early fall. There will be a "full-sized" book and the new Compendium will be a smaller distillation of that. We did this one differently by having multiple authors. Hopefully, some of the issues we had with the last two editions will be a thing of the past;)
 
Page 267, column II, 2nd paragraph - "negative with anti-IgG"

I don't understand why it is negative. In PCH, DL antibody is IgG so anti-IgG DAT should be positive.
Can anyone please shine some light here.
 
Page 267, column II, 2nd paragraph - "negative with anti-IgG"

I don't understand why it is negative. In PCH, DL antibody is IgG so anti-IgG DAT should be positive.
Can anyone please shine some light here.

If performed in the cold the IgG may be positive, but is often negative because the assay is performed at RT and the biphasic nature of the antibody. C3 is often positive, likely as a non-specific remnant of the hemolytic event.
 
If performed in the cold the IgG may be positive, but is often negative because the assay is performed at RT and the biphasic nature of the antibody. C3 is often positive, likely as a non-specific remnant of the hemolytic event.

Thank you for the clarification. By the way, the neoplastic hemepath chapter is not updated to 2008 WHO classification, right?
 
This came up during a lecture I was giving to my residents a few weeks ago:

page 234: M. bovis is listed as member of Group 3 in the Runyon classification. The WHO considers M. bovis part of the M. tuberculosis complex and therefore not "strictly amenable" to Runyon classification of non-tuberculous mycobacteria (even though we all remember that members of the M. tb complex would be Runyon Group 3 if they were classified using the Runyon System).
 
Hey Dr. GeoLeoX,
Do you have an updated time table on the new edition? Will it still have the same title?
Thanks :)
Steven
 
I am being told November 2013. It may have a different title at this time reflecting that it is no longer a "compendium".
 
Top