Goljan audios vs RR 3rd edition book

[tootheye]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Can one doaway just listening to the audios (with FA and UWorld) without going thru the 3rd ed RR book in detail except for reference. Its taking hell of a time reading and this is my second pass with audios and the book. I read 2nd ed before and just bought 3rd.
In other words will uworld makeup for the changes in RR from 2nd ed to 3 rd ed.

 

[Chillinforeva]

I agree, RR3 is too much. I wander if it is sufficient to do Goljan without RR3 too. Somebody please post a good answer.

 

[tootheye]

I went thru' Hematology in both. Except for a few newer drugs and a little change in the order the format is pretty much the same as in audio. So we have to suit ourselves depending on our audio or visual preferences. The advantage of audio may be keeping up with time. The advantage of 3rd ed book is online access to questions and slides and student consult.
Its still interesting to know if there are people who feel audios could reasonably replace the latest edition too.

 

[Chillinforeva]

Its still interesting to know if there are people who feel audios could reasonably replace the latest edition too.

Let me just get that straight:
I personally don't think the audio could replace the latest edition book but they're are mistakes in the 3rd edition as well and they are constantly being updated. I wish there was someone who could get an updated audio. Goljan teaches at Falcon Reviews but too bad the other teachers suck there and read straight from slides otherwise it would be worth it for the latest info from him. I was just wandering how sufficient is one to the other since the audio is quicker lets say on a scale to 1 to 10 , how would u rate both?(of course the audio is going to get a worst score but how low) Is there someone who has done all the audios and RR3 to rate them?

 

[dcgud]

Are there any new audios? aren't the ones everyone has from 2002

 

[MossPoh]

There are no Goljan approved audio lectures. I'm unaware of new ones, but if there are then they are also copyright infringements, so he probably isn't too happy about that.

I like to listen to his audio alongside the book. It is mostly the same (just scrambeled a little bit) and helps me tie things together nicely. I also bought the book out of principle. I can do a quick skim through his book if need be MUCH faster than listening to the lectures.

Rapid review pathology is NOT a book I'd pick up just for boards. In that context it is a TON of information and is a bit overwhelming until you get used to the outline format. It is a book I'd buy at the beginning of your pathology coursework and follow along with and make whatever notes you need. It took me a few weeks to really discover a way to get the maximum benefit from the book. I like to have a big notecard to go line by line through. If I hae a second on hand, I will put that on top of whatever topic is being discussed so I can constantly glance to it and be reminded rather than searching it out.

 

[CoolDoc27]

I can do a quick skim through his book if need be MUCH faster than listening to the lectures.

.

If you are a better auditory learner then the audio is probably faster though.

 

[MrBigLips]

I'm pretty sure the difference between the audio and RR3 is simply how high of a score you want. Do you want to do well on the boards.... or do you want to ace them?? I've heard the lectures probably about 3 times now and I'm halfway through the book. The book itself is packed with fact after fact and as mentioned above, it does take some time to get used to it. However, I strongly urge everyone to do both. Read the book at a pace thats comfortable for you, but listen to the audio when driving, or working out, or while doing house chores, etc.

One of the hospitals I was rotating at for a year had me drive about 30 mins each way. I'd pop pappie into the CD player and just listened to him during my commute.

 

[Torquer]

The audio doesnt cover all the topics mentioned in the book even, so i wouldnt rely on it solely. I find RR3 very exhausting though so im sticking to the previous version for my exam this year.

RR2 just seems so much more familiar. Shouldnt have a bad outcome on my exam right?

 

[ar2388]

does anyone know where i can find the errata in RR3?
thanks!

 

[MrBigLips]

RR2 just seems so much more familiar. Shouldnt have a bad outcome on my exam right?

Nah, I doubt it. As long as your reading one or the other it shouldn't make too much of a difference. Keep in mind though that I've never read RR2.

 

[tootheye]

Has any one done the 500 free online questions that come with RR 3rd ed with student consult. Can anyone compare the difficulty level with the real exam/Uworld.

 

[Fuzuli]

Has any one done the 500 free online questions that come with RR 3rd ed with student consult. Can anyone compare the difficulty level with the real exam/Uworld.

I'm disappointed with them. Apart from technical errors (some question stems are totally unrelated with the answer choices, sometimes pictures are not shown, etc.), some answers are plain wrong. For example, one question asks basically what is the most common etiological agent of osteomyelitis in patients with sickle cell anemia. Their answer (and their given explanation) is Salmonella spp., which is simply incorrect.

Ultimately, I feel they're on the same level of quality as Webpath questions.

 

[MrBigLips]

I'm disappointed with them. Apart from technical errors (some question stems are totally unrelated with the answer choices, sometimes pictures are not shown, etc.), some answers are plain wrong. For example, one question asks basically what is the most common etiological agent of osteomyelitis in patients with sickle cell anemia. Their answer (and their given explanation) is Salmonella spp., which is simply incorrect.

Ultimately, I feel they're on the same level of quality as Webpath questions.

Actually, I'm pretty sure Salmonella IS the MCC of osteomyelitis in sickle cell patients. S. aureus otherwise, and H. influenza in unvaccinated patients.

 

[dude1344]

For example, one question asks basically what is the most common etiological agent of osteomyelitis in patients with sickle cell anemia. Their answer (and their given explanation) is Salmonella spp., which is simply incorrect.

I ran across this in USMLERx as well and the answer was Salmonella... so what is it? Staph aureus? That being said, staph was not an answer choice, so salmonella was the obvious answer.

First Aid lists salmonella caused osteomyelitis as a complication of Sickle Cell, but it doesn't say it's the MOST common.

 

[Fuzuli]

Actually, I'm pretty sure Salmonella IS the MCC of osteomyelitis in sickle cell patients. S. aureus otherwise, and H. influenza in unvaccinated patients.

I ran across this in USMLERx as well and the answer was Salmonella... so what is it? Staph aureus? That being said, staph was not an answer choice, so salmonella was the obvious answer.

First Aid lists salmonella caused osteomyelitis as a complication of Sickle Cell, but it doesn't say it's the MOST common.

Yes the answer is S. aureus. Salmonella osteomyelitis is seen more commonly in sickle cell patients, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the most common cause of it. This is kinda tricky (and emphasized in Step 2 rather than Step 1), but if the question was "Which of the following conditions have the highest increase in incidence?", then the answer would have been Salmonella paratyphi.

"More than 95% of cases of hematogenous osteomyelitis are caused by a single organism, with Staphylococcus aureus accounting for 50% of cases...Salmonella spp. and S. aureus are the major causes of long-bone osteomyelitis complicating sickle cell anemia and other hemoglobinopathies."

Harrison's, 17th ed., p. 804.

"S. aureus is the most commonly isolated pathogen in both acute and chronic osteomyelitis... Salmonella is associated with sickle cell disease."

Cecil Medicine, 23rd ed., Chapter 293 - Infections of Bursae, Joints and Bones

"In osteomyelitis, Staphylococcus aureus is the most common infecting organism in all age groups, including newborns...Salmonella species and S. aureus are the two most common causes of osteomyelitis in children with sickle cell anemia."

Nelson Textbook of Pediatrics, 18th ed., Chapter 683 – Osteomyelitis

"Staphylococcus aureus is responsible for 80% to 90% of the cases of pyogenic osteomyelitis in which an organism is recovered...Haemophilus influenzae and group B streptococci are frequent pathogens, and individuals with sickle cell disease are predisposed to Salmonella infection."

Robbins PBOD, 8th ed., Chapter 26 - Bones, Joints & Soft-Tissue Tumors

 

[Torquer]

Their answer (and their given explanation) is Salmonella spp., which is simply incorrect.

thats actually correct, Salmonella is resonsible for osteomyelitis in people with sickle cell. Goljan mentions it in the audio as well.

 

[Fuzuli]

thats actually correct, Salmonella is resonsible for osteomyelitis in people with sickle cell. Goljan mentions it in the audio as well.

Please look at the post above your post.

 

[mrmandrake]

For what it's worth, this was in UpToDate:

Pathogenesis — Although blood cultures during septic events most commonly yield Streptococcus pneumoniae or Hemophilus influenzae, osteomyelitis is usually due to Salmonella or other gram-negative organisms, such as E. coli. Staphylococcus aureus, the most common cause of osteomyelitis in normal hosts, probably accounts for only one-fourth of all cases in SCD [48,51,52,58-62] .

 

[Fuzuli]

For what it's worth, this was in UpToDate:

Pathogenesis — Although blood cultures during septic events most commonly yield Streptococcus pneumoniae or Hemophilus influenzae, osteomyelitis is usually due to Salmonella or other gram-negative organisms, such as E. coli. Staphylococcus aureus, the most common cause of osteomyelitis in normal hosts, probably accounts for only one-fourth of all cases in SCD [48,51,52,58-62] .

Good input from uptodate. Did you take it from pediatric or adult article? Maybe this is a newer development; all of the textbooks I've mentioned above says something along the lines of 'S. aureus is the most common agent; predisposition to Salmonella is increased in SCD'. As a final note, a Lancet review article published in 2004 states "Frequent microorganism in any type of osteomyelitis is S. aureus".

Ultimately, I like splitting hairs as much as the next guy 🙂, but does it really matter? The question will be either be like 'Salmonella is isolated from bone culture material, what is the likely disease?' or give a clinical presentation of osteomyelitis in SCD and omit S. aureus in the answer choices.

Now that I've done my daily dose of procrastination 🙂, I should return to my First Aid.

 

[fahimaz7]

We learned salmonella as well

 

[fahimaz7]

Good input from uptodate. Did you take it from pediatric or adult article? Maybe this is a newer development; all of the textbooks I've mentioned above says something along the lines of 'S. aureus is the most common agent; predisposition to Salmonella is increased in SCD'. As a final note, a Lancet review article published in 2004 states "Frequent microorganism in any type of osteomyelitis is S. aureus".

Ultimately, I like splitting hairs as much as the next guy 🙂, but does it really matter? The question will be either be like 'Salmonella is isolated from bone culture material, what is the likely disease?' or give a clinical presentation of osteomyelitis in SCD and omit S. aureus in the answer choices.

Now that I've done my daily dose of procrastination 🙂, I should return to my First Aid.

It will most likely be a 20 year old AA with a small spleen and a painful bone lesion. The answer choices will have both Staph and Salmonella there, and it'll be salmonella.

 

[mrmandrake]

Good input from uptodate. Did you take it from pediatric or adult article?

The article was titled "Bone and joint complications in sickle cell disease" and it wasn't one of those adult or pediatric specific articles.