First Aid 2010 Errata

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

vicinihil

Member
Moderator Emeritus
Verified Member
Verified Expert
15+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2004
Messages
1,583
Reaction score
5
Does anyone have a place to find these? I went to the "official" First Aid website and they don't have anything regarding errata in their FA 2010 text.
Members don't see this ad.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Members don't see this ad :)
RapidReview said:
Well don't they fix all the 2009 errata in the 2010 Ed? So why would you want to use the 2009?
Click to expand...

The O2-dissociation curve on FA2010-p.504 is incorrect. It's the same exact error from the 2009 version (i.e. the arrows for "normal," "cyanosis," and "hypoxemia" are all pointing at the normal curve)

So no, they don't fix all the 2009 errors.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ryu02ETL said:
The O2-dissociation curve on FA2010-p.504 is incorrect. It's the same exact error from the 2009 version (i.e. the arrows for "normal," "cyanosis," and "hypoxemia" are all pointing at the normal curve)

So no, they don't fix all the 2009 errors.
Click to expand...

hm, thanks for the heads up. i guess i just assumed.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Just a few questions on FA, wondering if these were errors or not:

On p.418, FA says that you tilt your head towards the lesion in CN IV palsy. Shouldn't it be that you tilt your chin towards the lesion, or is that what they're trying to say?

Also, on p.421 FA mentions COWS with nystagmus one way and the quick phase the other. We learned that the quick phase of the eye is the same direction as the nystagmus. Thoughts??

By the way, these page numbers refer to the 2010 version.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Ryu02ETL said:
The O2-dissociation curve on FA2010-p.504 is incorrect. It's the same exact error from the 2009 version (i.e. the arrows for "normal," "cyanosis," and "hypoxemia" are all pointing at the normal curve)

So no, they don't fix all the 2009 errors.
Click to expand...

I dont believe this is an error. The different curves do not represent these different states, the different curves represent left/right shift. The arrows are pointing to the P02 at which one would see hypoxemia and then cyanosis develop. Sound right?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
kunfu said:
I dont believe this is an error. The different curves do not represent these different states, the different curves represent left/right shift. The arrows are pointing to the P02 at which one would see hypoxemia and then cyanosis develop. Sound right?
Click to expand...


I would agree.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
yeah that's not an error.

i thought so too but its just the different pO2s at where you'd see those three conditions. its a poorly labeled figure though, i agree
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
diggler33420 said:
Just a few questions on FA, wondering if these were errors or not:

On p.418, FA says that you tilt your head towards the lesion in CN IV palsy. Shouldn't it be that you tilt your chin towards the lesion, or is that what they're trying to say?

Also, on p.421 FA mentions COWS with nystagmus one way and the quick phase the other. We learned that the quick phase of the eye is the same direction as the nystagmus. Thoughts??

By the way, these page numbers refer to the 2010 version.
Click to expand...

http://www.med.yale.edu/caim/cnerves/cn4/cn4_6.html
for some info about superior oblique muscle
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Can I get a fact check for pg 511?

They state that small cell carcinoma is derived from Kulchitsky, while Robbins states that its probably from a bronchial precursor cell. We were taught that carcinoid is Kulchitsky.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Members don't see this ad :)
Where do you see that in Robbins? Daddy robbins onpg. 727 clearly states small cell from a neuroendocrine progenitor.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You're all correct, actually. As we learned it, SCLC derives from neuroendocrine progenitor cells within the respiratory epithelium. We were also taught that there exists some controversy about the nitty gritty details, but that the previous sentence I wrote includes the current conventional thinking.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
diggler33420 said:
Just a few questions on FA, wondering if these were errors or not:

On p.418, FA says that you tilt your head towards the lesion in CN IV palsy. Shouldn't it be that you tilt your chin towards the lesion, or is that what they're trying to say?

Also, on p.421 FA mentions COWS with nystagmus one way and the quick phase the other. We learned that the quick phase of the eye is the same direction as the nystagmus. Thoughts??

By the way, these page numbers refer to the 2010 version.
Click to expand...

I use this: Fast COWS. That is with cold water in the ear the fast or "quick" phase of nystagmus is opposite and with warm water the quick phase is to the same side.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'm not 100% sure if this is an error or not, but on p320 FA states that Crohn's is a disordered response to intestinal bacteria while Ulcerative Colitis is autoimmune. I know that neither really has a definite etiology, but I was under the impression that Crohn's is more autoimmune since it can present anywhere from mouth to anus, and UC was more of an unknown etiology (and can be "cured" by removal of affected colon segments = not autoimmune?)??

can someone clarify? Goljan doesn't really help on this one

Thanks
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
MikeMD said:
I'm not 100% sure if this is an error or not, but on p320 FA states that Crohn's is a disordered response to intestinal bacteria while Ulcerative Colitis is autoimmune. I know that neither really has a definite etiology, but I was under the impression that Crohn's is more autoimmune since it can present anywhere from mouth to anus, and UC was more of an unknown etiology (and can be "cured" by removal of affected colon segments = not autoimmune?)??

can someone clarify? Goljan doesn't really help on this one

Thanks
Click to expand...
I'm hoping that disordered immune response vs autoimmune for diseases where the etiology isn't completely known would be a detail not likely to be tested.....
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Maybe this should go into a new thread, but it would be good if we started making a running tally of differences between First Aid 2009 and 2010. That way at least we would know what information is unverified in the new edition.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
MikeMD said:
I'm not 100% sure if this is an error or not, but on p320 FA states that Crohn's is a disordered response to intestinal bacteria while Ulcerative Colitis is autoimmune. I know that neither really has a definite etiology, but I was under the impression that Crohn's is more autoimmune since it can present anywhere from mouth to anus, and UC was more of an unknown etiology (and can be "cured" by removal of affected colon segments = not autoimmune?)??

can someone clarify? Goljan doesn't really help on this one

Thanks
Click to expand...

hey mike,
i don't know where you go, but there is a really good review article (from nature) that discusses pathogenesis of IBD. They said in simplistic terms to think of Crohn's as a Th1 cell issue and ulcerative colitis as a Th2 phenomenon. Th1 cells make granulomas, fight infections, etc. etc. anaphylaxis (late stage), autoimmune issues can be Th2. it's easy if you sort things like that, although not all of the detailed findings could even remotely be justified on this assertion alone. there is a crapload of overlap in the two diseases.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cleft lip and cleft palate

Cleft palate - failure of fusion of the lateral palatine processes, the nasal septum, and/or the median palatine process (formation of secondary palate)

shouldn't that read, "formation of primary palate" since it's embryological origin is before the fusion of the lateral palatine processes (formation of primary palate)?


 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It says all class I decrease the phase 4 slope. I assume that is referring to just pacemaker cells? Is it safe to say that it decreases phase 0 slope in ventricular myocytes?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Kaparoo said:
Cleft lip and cleft palate

Cleft palate - failure of fusion of the lateral palatine processes, the nasal septum, and/or the median palatine process (formation of secondary palate)

shouldn't that read, "formation of primary palate" since it's embryological origin is before the fusion of the lateral palatine processes (formation of primary palate)?


Click to expand...


I'm not sure I entirely understand what you're asking, but I believe they're saying it's a "failure of formation of the secondary palate."

Failure of formation of the primary palate (medial nasal prominences/whatever) = cleft lip

Failure of formation of the secondary palate (lateral palatine processes [palatine shelves?]/nasal septum/median palatine process) = cleft palate.


Someone can feel free to crap all over my explanation if necessary.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
I just now realized that the odds ratio calculation/explanation is incorrect for a CASE CONTROL study as presented.

It should be the ODDS OF BEING EXPOSED among diseased individuals divided by the ODDS OF BEING EXPOSED among non-diseased individuals.

I think the way they have it written/calculated would be acceptable if you were performing one for a COHORT study (but wouldn't you just use a RR?).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
GuyWhoDoesStuff said:
I just now realized that the odds ratio calculation/explanation is incorrect for a CASE CONTROL study as presented.

It should be the ODDS OF BEING EXPOSED among diseased individuals divided by the ODDS OF BEING EXPOSED among non-diseased individuals.

I think the way they have it written/calculated would be acceptable if you were performing one for a COHORT study (but wouldn't you just use a RR?).
Click to expand...

I believe the math for this turns out the same either way.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Primary Spermatocyte should be 2N.
Secondary Spermatocyte should be N
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spermatogenesis
http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/science/biological_sciences/lab14/images/Spermatogenesis.jpg

The quantity xN (where x is an integer) = # of unique chromosomes. In the case of humans, have 23 pairs (N=23), 2N = 46.

Yes, you duplicate the quantity in prophase, resulting in 92 chromatids, but the actual number of unique chromosomes is the same, 2N. When the dividision occurs (in Meiosis I), then you have the haploid state, N.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I usually find myself laughing when reading some of the official errata, because the explanation given is usually in the format of "Wellllll, what we said was sort of right if you think about it THIS way.......but actually yeah we were wrong."


Also, some of their mnemonics are horrible. A made up but not farfetched example is:

How to remember a specific bone: Remember that when you sit on your Butt it's the Ischium Bone.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Upvote 0 Downvote
The Doctor said:
On page 78 of 2010 FA, biochemistry section, it says Chediak-higashi is a microtubule polymerization defect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chédiak–Higashi_syndrome Wikipedia doesn't mention MTs and only talks about a defect in the lysosome trafficking signal. http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/content/abstract/106/1/99 That article from 1993 even says it's not due to an MT defect. Anybody care to shed light on this?
Click to expand...
from emedicine

"Chédiak-Higashi syndrome is an autosomal recessive immunodeficiency disorder characterized by abnormal intracellular protein transport."

heres the entire article http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1114607-overview
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DrMetal said:
Has anyone successfully submitted a correction to First Aid:
http://firstaidteam.com/updates-and-corrections/

(I've submitted a couple things, no response).

Also, how often do they update the errata sheet? (the latest sais 6/10. Should have been updated by now, no?)
Click to expand...

I've tried about 4 things to no avail. I'll bet they don't respond because they don't want to dish out $20 giftcards :mad:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
On p.401 of First Aid 2010, it says lesion of Anterior Spinal Artery causes Contralateral hemiparesis (lower extremities)...

Why only lower extremities? Doesn't it cause hemiparesis of arms and legs on one side?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
CaliMD12 said:
On p.401 of First Aid 2010, it says lesion of Anterior Spinal Artery causes Contralateral hemiparesis (lower extremities)...

Why only lower extremities? Doesn't it cause hemiparesis of arms and legs on one side?
Click to expand...

For that matter, how do you determine which side constitutes "contralateral" in reference to midline pathology? I think you lose all motor control distal to the lesion, and you also lose distal pain/temp sensation because the spinothalamic tract is in the vascular territory bilaterally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anterior_cord_syndrome
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

O
  • Question
First aid step 1 pharmacology guidance
Replies
1
Views
1K
Smyrna
S
O
  • Question
USMLE Only UWorld without First Aid
Replies
6
Views
11K
ag14md
ag14md
Auroraborealis!1
  • Question
study partner for first aid/usmlerx 360 then uwolrd. inbox me if intrested
Replies
0
Views
426
Auroraborealis!1
Auroraborealis!1
bearintraining
  • Question
USMLE First Aid 2019 - Kindle version formatting?
Replies
2
Views
838
bearintraining
bearintraining
A
  • Question
Importing First Aid into OneNote
Replies
1
Views
2K
Lnsean
L
Top