For Those With Review Book Expertise

[tco]

---

Members don't see this ad.

A friend of mine tells me that, in Goljan's pirated lectures, he mentions that physical diagnosis is a huge part of many of the pathology questions. Would it be wise to have mastered the Pre-Test Physical Diagnosis book, or should this be a secondary task to actually having mastered pathology?

(For the record, I scored in the 85th percentile on the Physical Diagnosis shelf, which we took as our last shelf exam, but 58th on Pathology. I'm attributing a large chunk of my low score in pathology to having not reviewed half of the material, which I'm in the process of doing now, and not understanding renal at all, which I'm also working on now.)

Thanks in advance for the advice.

 

[hrandani]

If by physical diagnosis you are referring to observing the patient, uh no. Other than heart sounds, which is a very small part of the test, the information is basically going to be handed to you. So you have to know where the data is pointing, not how to obtain the data.

Pretty sure physical diagnosis is step II CS.