Get all Board Review Series books or just a few?

[didaleetle]

Are some more high yield than others?
For example, is gross anatomy or embryology as heavy tested as pharmacology or physiology?


thanks

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[didaleetle]

And is there much difference from 2006 versions from 2013 versions?

 

[Petypet]

I own gross anatomy, pharm, and neuro. They are all old versions and I used them during the semester for my block studies. They were sufficient for doing well on my exams and learning the material. The newer versions are probably more colorful, but the information hasn't changed a lot in that time span.

Specifically regarding the gross anatomy, I personally did not like the newer version because they tried to hard to make it beautiful and overly flashy.

 

[notbobtrustme]

BRS physio is a must; everything else is extra.

 

[Ionian]

BRS physio is a must; everything else is extra.

I'm in the phloston camp, and going to say BRS phys is **** for board review. As is all the other BRS series.

1. BRS phys was good for intro questions during phys class, but the reading wasn't as good as big castanzo
2. Having done all the questions again recently, I can't even recommend it as a go to source as the questions because they are either too easy "What valves open during systole" or just completely non-usmle style questions.
3. The only people I've seen happy with adding this monster to their review are the people that remember exactly nothing in physio/never annotated their first aid during physio (mistake), and they are like "oh thats how the heart works, that makes sense now!"

I'm sure for most of you SDN people, reading again that ACh is released in the NMJ is not going to be revolutionary, or give you any actual edge.

Do phys questions, think of it as directed study, if their is something you don't recall goto first aid, or look it up on the internet.

 

[dyspareunia]

So far I've found the HY series more worthwhile.. except for BRS physio.

 

[WaibelPalade]

I agree with the previous posts. brs physio is the best of the series. I have heard good things about brs path but if you want to stick to one source, pathoma and goljan are top tier. HY series is great for embryo, neuro. In the back of FA there is a pretty fair review of all sources. HY behavioral is better than brs behavioral even though they are the same author. i think brs anatomy would be helpful but anatomy is the same material whether it is Grays, Clinically Oriented etc. Brs physio, as stated is good for a quick refresher and the questions are not as helpful as qbank questions.

 

[DermViser]

I'm in the phloston camp, and going to say BRS phys is **** for board review. As is all the other BRS series.

1. BRS phys was good for intro questions during phys class, but the reading wasn't as good as big castanzo
2. Having done all the questions again recently, I can't even recommend it as a go to source as the questions because they are either too easy "What valves open during systole" or just completely non-usmle style questions.
3. The only people I've seen happy with adding this monster to their review are the people that remember exactly nothing in physio/never annotated their first aid during physio (mistake), and they are like "oh thats how the heart works, that makes sense now!"

I'm sure for most of you SDN people, reading again that ACh is released in the NMJ is not going to be revolutionary, or give you any actual edge.

Do phys questions, think of it as directed study, if their is something you don't recall goto first aid, or look it up on the internet.

BRS Phys - great review (only if your Physiology knowledge base is already strong to begin with), Questions are definitely not USMLE style.
BRS Physiology Cases and Problems - probably good to get you to think critically, but also aren't in USMLE style either.

On the USMLE, it's much more common for Physiology to be tested through Pathology (i.e. effect on the Wigger's diagram in aortic stenosis) or through Pharmacology (bc drugs naturally affect physiology.