Essential books

[jdefoe]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hi! I'm an MS1, and wanted to get your thoughts on my "essential" books list please. What do you guys think? Agree, disagree, etc.? I've been browsing around here at SDN and other places and looking at various reviews like on Amazon, and this is what I've come up with so far. Thanks in advance.

Anatomy: Moore's Clinically Oriented Anatomy (not Baby Moore)
Atlas (illustrated): Netter's is classic but Thieme seems to be recommended a lot too. Not sure which of the two to choose from to be honest. Thieme's is easier on the eyes for me, Netter's seems old school, cartoon-y. But maybe Netter's is more "accurate" (so far as illustrations can be accurate)?
Atlas (photos): Grant's (plus Acland DVDs)
Biochemistry: Lehninger
Histology: Junqueira
Embryology: Moore and Persaud
Immunology: Abbas
Neuroanatomy: unsure?
Pathology: Robbins Basic Pathology (seems sufficient rather than the expanded, more detailed Pathological Basis of Disease)
Pharmacology: Rang and Dale
Physiology: Costanzo

 

[badasshairday]

For anatomy atlas, I'd go with Netter or Rohan. The nice thing about Rohan is that they are actual pictures of cadavers. Netter is good since he drew it, he was able to make spacial sense by drawing certain things transparent to give the x-ray vision effect.

 

[jdefoe]

Thanks badasshairday! I didn't know that about Netter's. That's cool. What do you think of Thieme's though or is Netter still the better choice since it's been around much longer? Maybe I'm being superficial here and htis isn't a good way to pick an illustrated atlas, but I like the illustrations in Thieme's a lot more than Netter's.

 

[umza]

Neuroanatomy.. Neuroanatomy through clinical cases Blumenfeld..++

 

[silas2642]

Hi! I'm an MS1, and wanted to get your thoughts on my "essential" books list please. What do you guys think? Agree, disagree, etc.? I've been browsing around here at SDN and other places and looking at various reviews like on Amazon, and this is what I've come up with so far. Thanks in advance.

Anatomy: Moore's Clinically Oriented Anatomy (not Baby Moore)
Atlas (illustrated): Netter's is classic but Thieme seems to be recommended a lot too. Not sure which of the two to choose from to be honest. Thieme's is easier on the eyes for me, Netter's seems old school, cartoon-y. But maybe Netter's is more "accurate" (so far as illustrations can be accurate)?
Atlas (photos): Grant's (plus Acland DVDs)
Biochemistry: Lehninger
Histology: Junqueira
Embryology: Moore and Persaud
Immunology: Abbas
Neuroanatomy: unsure?
Pathology: Robbins Basic Pathology (seems sufficient rather than the expanded, more detailed Pathological Basis of Disease)
Pharmacology: Rang and Dale
Physiology: Costanzo

Yeah, I mean depending on where you go to school, nothing is really "essential" aside from an anatomy atlas and probably Moore's because of the blue boxes. I really liked Netter's personally and I did use Rohans (I thought it was great). Liked Moore's for the blue boxes. Robbin's is excellent, but if you haven't bought it yet, you may want to wait because word is the
8th edition is coming out this spring/summer, and you probably won't use it until second year anyway.

Constanzo is very good, both big Costanzo and BRS (baby). If you're weak on phys, then big Costanzo is definitely worth the extra money. I don't really feel that a pharmacology reference is worth it, because you can look up everything online these days. Never used anything for neuroanatomy really except for my school's syllabus and HY neuroananatomy.

 

[ChichiMD]

Hi! I'm an MS1, and wanted to get your thoughts on my "essential" books list please. What do you guys think? Agree, disagree, etc.? I've been browsing around here at SDN and other places and looking at various reviews like on Amazon, and this is what I've come up with so far. Thanks in advance.

Anatomy: Moore's Clinically Oriented Anatomy (not Baby Moore)
Atlas (illustrated): Netter's is classic but Thieme seems to be recommended a lot too. Not sure which of the two to choose from to be honest. Thieme's is easier on the eyes for me, Netter's seems old school, cartoon-y. But maybe Netter's is more "accurate" (so far as illustrations can be accurate)?
Atlas (photos): Grant's (plus Acland DVDs)
Biochemistry: Lehninger
Histology: Junqueira
Embryology: Moore and Persaud
Immunology: Abbas
Neuroanatomy: unsure?
Pathology: Robbins Basic Pathology (seems sufficient rather than the expanded, more detailed Pathological Basis of Disease)
Pharmacology: Rang and Dale
Physiology: Costanzo

For neuroanatomy, Purves was recommended and for clinical correlations, Blumenfeld (spelling?)....

 

[Guyton Killah]

So far, I have found all the BRS books quite outstanding. All of them, including Costanzo's Brs physiology. N they prepare you for the boards a s well.

 

[Charles_Carmichael]

I'm not in med school but I really don't think you'd be using your time efficiently with Lehninger's for biochem. It's a pretty dense textbook. Many people seem to like Lippincott's.

 

[146233]

Anatomy - Atlas: Netter's and/or Rohen's; Text: Gray's for Students or Big/Baby Moore
Biochem - Lippincott's, if anything outside of course notes
Neuroanatomy - Sidman's Neuroanatomy; Clinical Neuroanatomy Made Ridiculously Simple
Physiology - Costanzo

 

[badasshairday]

I'm not in med school but I really don't think you'd be using your time efficiently with Lehninger's for biochem. It's a pretty dense textbook. Many people seem to like Lippincott's.

Even Lippincott's is too dense. For biochem, go off your lecture notes primarily and reference Lippincott FTW.

 

[badasshairday]

So far, I have found all the BRS books quite outstanding. All of them, including Costanzo's Brs physiology. N they prepare you for the boards a s well.

I thought you would be straight going nuts on the Guyton instead of spending time reading BRS PHYS.

 

[.surgical.]

I'm a huge fan of both Lippencott for biochem and Costanzo as the bible of physio.

We used Netter's Essential Histology, which I liked, as well as Color Atlas of Histo by Gartner and Hiatt.

Any Microbiology recommendations?

 

[cbass1350]

For board review, Micro Made Ridiculously Simple is very handy. Not sure for course work. I used the Lange review book (by Javetz) during my 2nd year. It was okay and also had a decent Immuno review. Might want to check that out.

 

[number]

An additional consideration is which textbooks your school uses.

At my school, lectures are very similar to Guyton and use all of the same tables, graphs, and ideal values. It does not matter if Costanzo is a better book (I have never looked at it). Guyton will get me an A with less work.

 

[coldweatherblue]

I use BRS everything for questions and quick summaries.

The total time I spend reading big textbooks probably comprises less than 5% of my total study time though.

The rest is syllabus and internet.

 

[DF38]

For board review, Micro Made Ridiculously Simple is very handy. Not sure for course work. I used the Lange review book (by Javetz) during my 2nd year. It was okay and also had a decent Immuno review. Might want to check that out.

I used it for class (along with flash cards) and felt like it was sufficient.

 

[jdefoe]

Thanks guys.

The reason I was thinking about a textbook like Lehninger was because I don't feel like I have a good science foundation. I mean I'm fine with bio and general chem, but ochem was REALLY hard for me. (Same with physics but that prob doesnt apply as much with biochem.) So I feel like I need more hand-holding so to speak. Or do you think Lippincott + lectures and notes would still be more than sufficient? Point taken about the efficient use of time though, and it WOULD be time-consuming to read through a full textbook like Lehninger. Hmmmmm........

 

[Charles_Carmichael]

Thanks guys.

The reason I was thinking about a textbook like Lehninger was because I don't feel like I have a good science foundation. I mean I'm fine with bio and general chem, but ochem was REALLY hard for me. (Same with physics but that prob doesnt apply as much with biochem.) So I feel like I need more hand-holding so to speak. Or do you think Lippincott + lectures and notes would still be more than sufficient? Point taken about the efficient use of time though, and it WOULD be time-consuming to read through a full textbook like Lehninger. Hmmmmm........

I found that O-chem didn't help me at all in biochem...the only thing I used from O-chem was electron pushing and some basic nucleophile/electrophile stuff, which isn't hard to understand. I wouldn't use O-chem as a predictor for success in biochem, but maye that's just me. Either way, Lehninger's is a dense textbook and I don't know if you would have the time to read through the material in there and retain it in the fast pace of med school (once again, don't take everything I say as an absolute...I'm still an undergrad 🙂).

 

[DoctorPardi]

If you are covering microbiology in the upcoming module/year whatever you must get "Clinical microbiology made ridiculously simple".

For Biochemistry no question about it you gotta get lippincotts illustrated review of biochem. I didn't even buy the required biochem book for our class and I had never taken biochem before. This book was extremely helpful.

Also as for your pathology book, I would get the big Robbins pathologic basis of disease. Maybe others should weigh in on this but I would get baby Robbins and Big Robbins and use them both as needed.

We had a class where something like 25% of our test questions came directly from Robbins. So if you hadn't read it, there's a good chance much of that 25% wasn't covered in lecture. I feel like baby and medium robbins is going to cover the basics that a lecture on a specific topic would cover anyway whereas the big version would provide extra insight/minutiae that might not be covered in a lecture. If there is a chance your school would test you directly out of Robbins I would go ahead and get the big version, if it is solely to be used as a supplement then medium would probably do the job.

 

[NOdilation]

first aid. use it early and often. before every test I go through that section of first aid. a friend of mine said that you should never miss a question on a section test that could have been answered in first aid. plus you get comfortable with the book early.

micro: made ridiculously simple and high yield.

path: BRS is very good for in house. Goljan is better for boards and brings together multiple subjects.

pharm: I like katzung and trevors pharmacology examination and board review

anatomy: moore

physiology: big costanzo and BRS

histology: I really likeed Ross

biochem: lippincott

behavioral: high yield

 

[badasshairday]

Do people read Big Costanzo cover to cover, or is this just for reference?

 

[turkeyjerky]

Do people read Big Costanzo cover to cover, or is this just for reference?

I've been reading the relevant chapter at the beginning and at the end of each of our units. It's a pretty easy read.

I think that Netter's is both necessary and sufficient for anatomy; I've been loving Micro Made Ridiculously Simple.

Aside from that, I've found course notes to be enough.

 

[badasshairday]

I've been reading the relevant chapter at the beginning and at the end of each of our units. It's a pretty easy read.

Ever read Guyton? How does it compare? It takes so freakin long to get through a chapter of Guyton. I feel like dropping the textbook and just sticking to lecture notes and BRS. But then again, I feel like I should be reading a full text since it is physio.

 

[ButImLETired]

Hey guys,

does baby Moore have the "blue boxes" people keep talking about or does only big Moore have them? Any feelings about Guyton vs. big Costanzo?

 

[Dr Roboto]

does baby Moore have the "blue boxes" people keep talking about or does only big Moore have them?

They both do. But ECA (baby) does not have all of the boxes that are in COA (daddy).

 

[jdefoe]

Cool, thanks again guys! This is awesome info and advice. Much appreciated!

And good news on ochem not really being too much of an indicator on necessarily how poorly I'd do in biochem. That's a relief! 🙂

By the way DoctorPardi mentioned Robbins for path, which of course is THE book for path. But I was comparing big (the Path Basis of Disease) with baby (Basic Path), and baby was easier for me to understand. Would you say it's something like getting Guyton vs. Costanzo for physiology, where Guyton is everything and then some but probably overkill for us? I'd love to hear people's thoughts weighing in on the big and baby Robbins books.

 

[jdefoe]

Also, it is even worth getting a medical dictionary these days, like Stedman's, Taber's, Dorland's, etc. since so much is online anyway?

 

[kevster2001]

Maybe you guys are different but most textbooks are useless for my classes. Books I found helpful:

Netters
Clinical Microbio made ridiculously simple
BRS series
RapidReview Pathology
Pathophysiology of Heart Disease (Lilly)

Everything else can be found by wikipedia or AccessMedicine.

 

[.surgical.]

I would never spend money on a medical dictionary. That information is easily accessible online and in much further depth.

 

[SB100]

Someone mentioned Purves for neuro...are you sure? They use that for neuro PhD students at my uni.

 

[nogolfinsnow]

Someone mentioned Purves for neuro...are you sure? They use that for neuro PhD students at my uni.

Anything that's in Purves should be well covered by lecture. I got it used from an upperclassman last year and used it about twice in our long neuro unit. I would save the money and get Blumenfeld, which has some overlap with Purves but is more medicine oriented, where Purves is more the science of nerves.

 

[badasshairday]

Any feelings about Guyton vs. big Costanzo?

Seems like most people stick to one book so it is hard to get a comparison. So far I have used Guyton for the first half of Physio, but I'll be switching to big Costanzo for the second half.

A 4th year at my school did the same, he said that Guyton is a good book, but gets too long winded at times. He switched to Costanzo and said he was fine. Most people read Guyton the whole way at my school, especially since the cardio and renal units are lectured by duded that worked with Guyton back in the day, so classmates just stick with Guyton.

I'll let the pre-meds know my opinion on Guyton vs. Costanzo in a few weeks.

 

[smq123]

Histology: Junqueira
Embryology: Moore and Persaud

I actually didn't like Junquiera very much. I did use it because it was available online via AccessMedicine, but I wasn't crazy about it. I just used my course notes, lecture notes, and syllabus for that course.

Buying Moore and Persaud for embryo is overkill. Your course notes should be sufficient for the course AND for Step 1. There is little embryo on Step 1, and most of it is abnormal embryology anyhow.

 

[Institute]

Someone mentioned Purves for neuro...are you sure? They use that for neuro PhD students at my uni.

Nice ode to Bedrock and Saint's n Sinners 😉.

 

[njbmd]

Before you start buying a ton of books, wait until you get to your school and see what the upper classmen recommend. My upper class advisor gave me all of her text books and a Netter atlas. I didn't need to purchase anything except Pharm Recall (the single most useful book that I found) and the only book that I purchased for Step I review. Our syllabi books were very complete especially Path and thus, I didn't need extra books that would end up sitting on a shelf.

Most of the people who spent hundreds of dollars on review books and extra texts did far worse in class and on Boards than myself. I only used what was strongly recommended and in my case, it was usually just the syllabus and handouts. Overkill is just that, overkill and you won't have tons of time to consult tons of books.

 

[ChichiMD]

Someone mentioned Purves for neuro...are you sure? They use that for neuro PhD students at my uni.

I said purves because my work required me to take neuro with the med students at the school where I work and that book was 'required'. I just went off notes tho and read the chapters I didnt understand fully.

Overkill really IS the enemy.

 

[bodonid]

*These are assuming you are beginning a CLASS, and will be (essentially) useless for review*

I am two weeks into a course in neuroanatomy, and I can't recommend neuroanatomy TCC (Blumenfeld) enough. Not for review, mind you... I knew I was hooked when the first case in the spinal cord chapter was an old fashioned subdural hematoma (or something like that). Really integrates the material.

Ikay, on the subject of physiology... costanzo is great for developing a functional knowledge of any subject in physiology. But it alone isn't enough for an in-depth understanding. My best guess? Use Guyton with BRS for review in the day or two before a test, OR know costanzo COLD. It is pretty impossible to use both books (even though I owned both), so I did the former. I absolutely loved Costanzo before my phys course, but there are many things I couldn't have learned from it. It may come down to how much time you want to devote to the course. If you only have three or four days to study, or if you tend to cram, I'd use Costanzo.

 

[ngkats]

first aid. use it early and often. before every test I go through that section of first aid. a friend of mine said that you should never miss a question on a section test that could have been answered in first aid. plus you get comfortable with the book early.

Which one? First Aid for USMLE Step I? First Aid for the Basic Sciences?

 

[ngkats]

Does "baby" Robbins Pathology refer to the Robbins "basic" pathology book? And is this useful to anyone? (I own it already from undergrad, so hopefully it'll come in use.)

 

[Dr Roboto]

Does "baby" Robbins Pathology refer to the Robbins "basic" pathology book? And is this useful to anyone? (I own it already from undergrad, so hopefully it'll come in use.)

That's medium robbins. Pocket = baby robbins.

 

[IntelInside]

Alright, I am going to be an incoming MS1 in August and I have been creating an outline/plan for myself which consists of books and study guide. What do u guys think of the books I have chosen, and for the other subjects I havent covered in the outline (anatomy, histology, etc) what do you guys suggest.

Medical School Review Books

High Yield:
1) Neuroanatomy
2) Embryology
3) Cell and Molecular Biology
4) Immunology

Microbiology:
1) Microbiology Made Ridiculously Simple
2) Review of Medical Microbiology and Immunology

Biochemistry:
1) Lippincott

Pathology:
1) Goljan + Audio

Physiology:
1) BRS Physiology


**Everything is also supplemented with Kaplan lecture notes and FA (both of which I have in PDF format, 2006/2007 and 2008 versions respectively) **

Outline of Plan:

*For semesters 1-3:
- I am going to annotate both FA and Kaplan notes. During the beginning of the week (Sunday) I am going to read for the first time everything for the week and highlighting pertinent information. Then I will read the highlighted sections before class. I will go to lecture and then review that day's lecture, and reread what I highlighted and also read the respective chapters in the Review books, making notes while I do so.

Outline:
- During summer before my first year I going to start to review biochemistry, physiology, and microbiology. [(4.5 hrs/day à 5 days a week) – one week for when I am in Europe]

- Semester 1*

- During winter break I will review everything from that semester and read the review books. If time permits, I will also get a head start on next semesters reading. (5 hrs/day à 5 days a week)

- Semester 2*

- During my summer, between first and second year, for one month I am going to review everything that I did in the entire year. For the rest of my summer I am going to get a head start on the following semester.

- Semester 3*

- During winter break I am going to read all of the Kaplan review books. Try to get a head start on semester 4. (7.5 hrs/day à 5 days a week)

- For semester 4 I am going to follow a watered down version of what I did for semesters 1-3, trying to make some space for review time for the boards. I will also take a NBME exam in the midway into the semester to gauge how I stand. I will also start doing questions from the Question Banks, 50/day.

- After Semester 4 and before studying for the "beasts" I will take another NBME exam.

- 2 weeks into studying I will take another exam

- 1 week left I will take one last exam

- Last week I am going to just review FA and skim Kaplan notes

Question Banks/Practice Exams:

1) Kaplan Qbank
2) UWorld
3) The free sites
4) NBME exams

USMLE/Comlex Step 1 score goal!!!!!:

USMLE: 245+
Comlex: 700+

 

[MediumDef]

Alright, I am going to be an incoming MS1 in August and I have been creating an outline/plan for myself which consists of books and study guide. What do u guys think of the books I have chosen, and for the other subjects I havent covered in the outline (anatomy, histology, etc) what do you guys suggest.

It's beautiful, all you need is a machine that stops time so that you can cram this 200+ hours/week if studying into 168. (Given your obvious ambition I'm sure you have already found a way to defeat every student's nemesis -sleep). Also some Vit D supplements since you will apparently only see sunlight every third Friday.

In all seriousness I am sure you have the best of intentions but you should print this schedule out put it somewhere conspicuous and laugh at it two weeks in to school when you realize how crazy it is. You'll be much better off if you don't hold yourself to some stringent schedule and let yourself organically grow into a method that works best for you.

 

[medschool08]

I am an MS1 currently and I was the same way as. I had it all planned out and organized. By the end of first week, I was already behind on material. You are not going to have time to go through all the review books in detail your first year. Sometimes, you are not even going to have time to review material you learned that day!! But, I do think it's a good idea to start using the review books after your first year and start reading FA!!

Good luck!!

 

[medschool08]

I am an MS1 currently and I was the same way as. I had it all planned out and organized. By the end of first week, I was already behind on material. You are not going to have time to go through all the review books in detail your first year. Sometimes, you are not even going to have time to review material you learned that day!! But, I do think it's a good idea to start using the review books after your first year and start reading FA!!

Good luck!!

 

[sprinkibrio]

Anatomy: Gray's for Students or Moore
Atlas (illustrated): Netter and/or Rohen
Pathology: Robbins Basic Pathology, Goljan audio, and RR path by Goljan
Physiology: BRS Physiology
Micro: Micro Made Rid Simple
Dubin's EKG
Wikipedia

THAT'S IT. Anything else is very, very dumb. Just wait until you get to school and you'll understand.

 

[LonghornDoc12]

I would recommend not buying a medical dictionary. Keep Wikipedia up during lecture. It feels so wrong, but its so right.

As far as books, I am of the Rohen, Netter, and small Moore (only if ur syllabus is light on text) for anatomy fan club. Phys BRS. Micro MRS. Neuroscience ask upperclassmen because it is taught so differently between schools.

Personally I would stay far away from Gray's. The pictures are online and I didn't like the text at all.

Depending on if you school provides sample questions etc. the pretest series is good if you like studying with questions (which I find really helpful).

 

[ChimpanzeeMinky]

It's all about context. I read everyone's advice before starting M1, which mostly advised avoiding books because everything will be in the syllabus and you won't have time for the books. Had I not wavered from that counsel, I would have been in a bad situation, because unlike most of my colleagues, I came in *only* having the pre-reqs, and had never been exposed to any of the subjects like biochem, genetics, anatomy, etc. With a foundation, the syllabus may be adequate. And there may even be schools where the syllabus is comprehensive enough to be adequate even for people like me. Here at MCV that was not my experience.

Lehninger's was a lifesaver. A week into biochem I realized I had no idea what was going on, even with hours spent in lecture and reviewing the syllabus and slides. Lehninger is readable and actually *explains* everything. It took longer, sure, but it was absolutely essential.

Netter's and Rohen make a good pair - the former for just learning everything and the latter for reviewing prior to practicals so that you can visually identify things. I picked up Thieme out of curiosity and I agree - it is much prettier. Unfortunately, I found many instances where it lacked sufficient detail. I'd look up a structure only not to find it represented in multiple views (which is how you're going to need to learn structures if you're going to be able to recognize them in multiple cadavers), as you find in Rohen and Netters. Eventually I just stopped using it as a reference.

Guyton's physio is outstanding, especially for cardio. I am one of the few people who doesn't like Costanzo all that much. She's great if you're just looking for a reference in which you can cram some unconnected factoids, but if I don't understand it, I won't remember it. Guyton and the Lange series on physiology help me to do just that.