Evidence-based physical diagnosis

[Evil_Abed]

What are people's opinions on this book?

http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Base...pert-Consult/dp/1437722075/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

I have the 2nd edition of this book. Almost everyone I know has been reading the Bates' book, but I'm kind of liking this one so far (the one or two sections of it that I've read so far, at least). It's nice, concise, and supports what it says with evidence. Anyone recommend this for preclinical med students as well or is it a better idea to read Bates' or Talley's right now and leave this book till later on in the clinical years? I'm currently an M2, btw. Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[evilbooyaa]

I would stick to whatever your med school recommends for preclinical. I have the book (forget the edition and CBA to look right now) and it's crazy how low the sensitivity and specificity is of the multitude of physical exam things we do.

I'd like to say that 3rd year allows you to do what is actually important in a physical, but even then, the hospital has a system that you kind of just fall into or get weird looks/questions about why you didn't do x part of the physical exam on the patient.

 

[OveractiveBrain]

What are people's opinions on this book?

http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Base...pert-Consult/dp/1437722075/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

I have the 2nd edition of this book. Almost everyone I know has been reading the Bates' book, but I'm kind of liking this one so far (the one or two sections of it that I've read so far, at least). It's nice, concise, and supports what it says with evidence. Anyone recommend this for preclinical med students as well or is it a better idea to read Bates' or Talley's right now and leave this book till later on in the clinical years? I'm currently an M2, btw. Thanks!

it is an incredible book, but is certainly not where you begin. You need a bate's or something similar, something to show you the motions before you start diving into the deeper material. Steven Magee has done a great job of showing us what exams actually matter, actually change the probability of disease, and which dont.

But, before you even start this book you have to have a fundamental understanding of bayesian reasoning, you have to know the fundamentals of physical exams, and you have to actually know HOW to do a physical exam well. For the clinician who cares about the way doctor's really think (or, are supposed to think) it is a great book. if you want to be a technician ("surgeon") or a box-checker ("hospitalist") and are doing medicine for a job, not a craft, then it is not worth it.

if you have a little adventurer in you. If you care about being a masterful clinician, not just a memory machine. Indeed, if you want to be a little House-Esque in terms of nuances and teasing out the diagnosis, great book. Not for everyone, but a powerful tool for people who want to go one step further, bring clinical medicine back to what its supposed to be (power of touch, investigation, answers BEFORE the CT scan).

 

[Rendar5]

I previewed it and it is a great book! But beyond what a 2nd year needs to master. It is great for your clinical years honestly and beyond. Looks useful even to me as an attending, though not sure about some of that older data (e.g. glanced at a section of diplopia and it made a statement of it occurring in 58% of blowout fractures, which I can tell you is certainly not true in the CT Facial bones era since we catch a lot more of these. The data source was 1991)

 

[Evil_Abed]

I would stick to whatever your med school recommends for preclinical. I have the book (forget the edition and CBA to look right now) and it's crazy how low the sensitivity and specificity is of the multitude of physical exam things we do.

it is an incredible book, but is certainly not where you begin. You need a bate's or something similar, something to show you the motions before you start diving into the deeper material.

I previewed it and it is a great book! But beyond what a 2nd year needs to master. It is great for your clinical years honestly and beyond.

Hey, thanks a lot guys! I'm a little disappointed (since I really liked what I've read so far in it, especially with the CV section with the murmurs!), but I'll stick it out with Bates for now. Maybe, I'll occasionally read stuff up in this book (after Bates, of course!) if I'm really interested in the organ system or something. But I'll save it for the clinical years.

Appreciate the advice! 🙂

 

[notamember82]

Best physical exam book= Sapiras.

 

[Evil_Abed]

Best physical exam book= Sapiras.

I've been reading really good things about Sapira's, but I've also come across a few posts saying that's it's a bit more advanced. So, I don't know if I should just stick with Bates or glance through this as well. We do have pretty good workshops where attendings take us through the various exams and we get to practice them on each other and/or standardized patients for a few hours. Maybe I'll just try different books out and see how they work in conjunction with what we learn. I don't know why, but I really don't like reading Bates (hence, me looking for an alternative)!

 

[notamember82]

Sapiras I think could be valuable for both the novice and the master clinician. I added to my library as an MSIII and read it through a bunch of times mostly because I think it's interesting. I don't think I would advise a second year to replace bates with it though.

 

[Evil_Abed]

Sapiras I think could be valuable for both the novice and the master clinician. I added to my library as an MSIII and read it through a bunch of times mostly because I think it's interesting. I don't think I would advise a second year to replace bates with it though.

Thanks for the info. After reading around for a bit, I think I'll try out the Swartz book and see if I like it better than Bates.

Appreciate all the advice, guys!