- Joined
- Feb 6, 2005
- Messages
- 38
- Reaction score
- 0
I personally find the rapid review by goljan so much better then BRS however any suggestions abt which is better + is ONLY GOLJAN RAPID REVIEW enough
Goljan rapid review book v/s BRS pathology
- Thread starter cynicalutopian
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2002
- Messages
- 1,828
- Reaction score
- 2
cynicalutopian said:
I have both, and I like Goljan's book better because of it's organization and charts. I plan on using both for review only because so many people have had success with BRS.
- Joined
- May 14, 2004
- Messages
- 21,249
- Reaction score
- 9,952
viper said:
If you're talking about this book
then I would recommend it, not as a primary review book however. It is basically the notes Goljan uses in class. and as opposed to his Saunders book, it is in outline form and very succinct. It is a very, very good resource to have to go back to later when you need to look up something quickly or to use as an abridged version of notes for prep. But it only has 2 sample tests with 50 questions each and a cd rom with some USMLE-type questions, but I would stil recomend getting Robins or Goljan's other question book for path. Even though I have his notes from school, this is what i take with me when I'm out of town since it's a durable book and much thinner than my notebooks.
If you put this book up on your site, I'll review it and a few others that I'm familiar with if you need another reviewer.
- Joined
- May 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,063
- Reaction score
- 6
i compared the two very very briefly. the books are organized for two different purposes. speculation... brs is primarily for quick review and is organized so that you can skim the page very quickly and find exactly what you're looking for. it is a true pathology outline. goljan is for succinct explanations. you will get slightly more depth to his presentation - he will help you understand how to pick things out of a vignette and understand some of the pathophys. but it's not as easy to skim the page quickly and find the pertinent facts of each pathology. plus the font he uses is really annoying, but that's just me.
so for running through the concepts i would use goljan. if you have a solid foundation for path, then brs might be more efficient. that's just my interpretation after using brs for a few months, and comparing it to goljan for about an hour.
so for running through the concepts i would use goljan. if you have a solid foundation for path, then brs might be more efficient. that's just my interpretation after using brs for a few months, and comparing it to goljan for about an hour.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2005
- Messages
- 153
- Reaction score
- 0
Hernandez said:If you're talking about this book
then I would recommend it, not as a primary review book however. It is basically the notes Goljan uses in class. and as opposed to his Saunders book, it is in outline form and very succinct. It is a very, very good resource to have to go back to later when you need to look up something quickly or to use as an abridged version of notes for prep. But it only has 2 sample tests with 50 questions each and a cd rom with some USMLE-type questions, but I would stil recomend getting Robins or Goljan's other question book for path. Even though I have his notes from school, this is what i take with me when I'm out of town since it's a durable book and much thinner than my notebooks.
If you put this book up on your site, I'll review it and a few others that I'm familiar with if you need another reviewer.
What is the goljan question book for path that you refer too?
viper
- Joined
- May 14, 2004
- Messages
- 21,249
- Reaction score
- 9,952
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2002
- Messages
- 269
- Reaction score
- 0
I second the font thing in Goljan, very annoying to read.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2005
- Messages
- 153
- Reaction score
- 0
Hernandez,
You can definitely review on the website (sorry I missed that line earlier - will pm you my email and then we can talk).
I have been searching goljan stuff since your post. I have not seen a question book, but came across another book from him (still researching this) - ISBN 0721670237. It's the stars review book, but it's not the one with the outline. This seems to be a more comprehensive version - though the cover and everything from the outside is the same for both books - weird.
Do you have an ISBN on the book you referred too??
Thanks,
Viper
You can definitely review on the website (sorry I missed that line earlier - will pm you my email and then we can talk).
I have been searching goljan stuff since your post. I have not seen a question book, but came across another book from him (still researching this) - ISBN 0721670237. It's the stars review book, but it's not the one with the outline. This seems to be a more comprehensive version - though the cover and everything from the outside is the same for both books - weird.
Do you have an ISBN on the book you referred too??
Thanks,
Viper
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 13
- Reaction score
- 0
Some of you posted that you would use BRS as a "review" source...do you mean to say that BRS doesn't cover all Board material?...that would be a problem since my school really didn't emphasize pathology unfortunately...so it looks like BRS/Goljan would be my only real source for path...any advice? Thanks
- Joined
- May 14, 2004
- Messages
- 21,249
- Reaction score
- 9,952
Viper:
The review/question book from the Star series should be ISBN: 0721670245 . Star Series: ISBN: 0721670237: is the text version of path.
Killadoc: I would get the Goljan Star Series book in your instance. It's not in outline form and much easier to understand. The BRS/Goljan Rapid review series I would only use if you have a decent background in path. Even with Goljan's class notes, I preread the Star Series book first, then go to the outline notes. I would then use the rapid review for a quicker studying of path after you have a good grasp on the material since it is quicker to read
The review/question book from the Star series should be ISBN: 0721670245 . Star Series: ISBN: 0721670237: is the text version of path.
Killadoc: I would get the Goljan Star Series book in your instance. It's not in outline form and much easier to understand. The BRS/Goljan Rapid review series I would only use if you have a decent background in path. Even with Goljan's class notes, I preread the Star Series book first, then go to the outline notes. I would then use the rapid review for a quicker studying of path after you have a good grasp on the material since it is quicker to read
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2005
- Messages
- 44
- Reaction score
- 0
So I guess the consensus is that Rapid Review is better than BRS in terms of concepts? What about Goljan's Lecture notes? I have his notes from the Kaplan course, its pretty thick. I was wondering if its pretty much the same as Rapid Review or is it worth getting the Rapid Review even with the lecture notes?
- Joined
- May 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,063
- Reaction score
- 6
alright well i've studied the cardio and respiratory sections with both books now so i have some more observations. in general it's maddening when you study with the two books at the same time. that's the only real conclusion - it's maddening. both have significant strengths AND significant weaknesses. hopefully the new BRS coming out this November will solve that but it's not going to help the class of 2007 much.
sometimes BRS will emphasize something i think is very important, and goljan will emphasize something different. for example rheumatic fever. BRS is great for rheumatic fever buzzwords. ASO titer. aschoff body. both are featured very prominently in BRS. in goljan it's there, but hidden with all the other text. compare:
BRS: "Aschoff body - classic lesion of rhuematic fever. definition. characterization."
Goljan: "Aschoff bodies are present"
BRS: ASO mentioned as the 3rd bullet point.
Goljan: ASO mentioned LAST under "diagnosis"
another example: stable/unstable angina. BRS bolds "stable angina, precitated by exercion", "unstable angina, prolonged or recurrent pain at rest". Boom, clear as day distinguishing stable vs unstable. now let's see how goljan does it: starts by talking about pathogenesis, says something about which is more common (his pet topic of discussion btw, every page in the book is riddled with x is most common in y, p is most common q of r, blah blah blah). exercised induced is listed along with how long it lasts, blah blah blah, the part about ST depression is the only part bolded.
so a student who reads BRS will go away thinking "unstable is pain at rest", the goljan student gets "unstable has ST elevation plus some other crap". a difference in emphasis. BRS is big on defining and buzzwords. goljan de-emphasizes definition and key points in favor of organizational consistency, pathophys, and clinical stuff. depends on what you think is more important. i personally think the ideal book includes a combination - i want to know what the pathology is, i want to know the important points first, and then i want to know clinical presentation.
other times goljan explains something really well that BRS glosses over. for example hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. BRS mentions jumbled fibers leading to sudden death. Goljan spells it out, mentioning jumbled fibers resulting in conduction problems leading to sudden death. another example: stable/unstable angina. BRS defines. goljan tells you EKG findings, e.g. stable angina ST depression. unstable angina ST elevation. another example: enzyme findings in MI. BRS gives you some weird chart. goljan spells it out: "troponin is the gold standard."
BRS is very good at discussing broad topics succinctly before going into detail, whereas Goljan seems to just dive right in. an example of this is COPD and cardiomyopathy. both times BRS says "COPD is... exemplified by..." then lists asthma, emphysema, etc. goljan doesn't even use the term COPD and just starts describing astha, emphysema, etc separately. same thing for cardiomyopathy. BRS starts out saying cardiomyopathy is disease of heart muscle without inflammation, HTN, CHD, CAD, or valvular disease, etc. goljan again just dives right in. no intro, no broad overview.
so in summary i think both books could be improved. i think goljan is too rigid in his presentation order, and that hurts him on emphasizing key points. BRS is good at summarizing broad topics like COPD early on. BRS is good for a quick hit of key facts, goljan is better for a more complete understanding but at the risk of getting lost on peripheral info and not going away with knowing what are the real key points of a certain pathology.
that is just my opinion.
sometimes BRS will emphasize something i think is very important, and goljan will emphasize something different. for example rheumatic fever. BRS is great for rheumatic fever buzzwords. ASO titer. aschoff body. both are featured very prominently in BRS. in goljan it's there, but hidden with all the other text. compare:
BRS: "Aschoff body - classic lesion of rhuematic fever. definition. characterization."
Goljan: "Aschoff bodies are present"
BRS: ASO mentioned as the 3rd bullet point.
Goljan: ASO mentioned LAST under "diagnosis"
another example: stable/unstable angina. BRS bolds "stable angina, precitated by exercion", "unstable angina, prolonged or recurrent pain at rest". Boom, clear as day distinguishing stable vs unstable. now let's see how goljan does it: starts by talking about pathogenesis, says something about which is more common (his pet topic of discussion btw, every page in the book is riddled with x is most common in y, p is most common q of r, blah blah blah). exercised induced is listed along with how long it lasts, blah blah blah, the part about ST depression is the only part bolded.
so a student who reads BRS will go away thinking "unstable is pain at rest", the goljan student gets "unstable has ST elevation plus some other crap". a difference in emphasis. BRS is big on defining and buzzwords. goljan de-emphasizes definition and key points in favor of organizational consistency, pathophys, and clinical stuff. depends on what you think is more important. i personally think the ideal book includes a combination - i want to know what the pathology is, i want to know the important points first, and then i want to know clinical presentation.
other times goljan explains something really well that BRS glosses over. for example hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. BRS mentions jumbled fibers leading to sudden death. Goljan spells it out, mentioning jumbled fibers resulting in conduction problems leading to sudden death. another example: stable/unstable angina. BRS defines. goljan tells you EKG findings, e.g. stable angina ST depression. unstable angina ST elevation. another example: enzyme findings in MI. BRS gives you some weird chart. goljan spells it out: "troponin is the gold standard."
BRS is very good at discussing broad topics succinctly before going into detail, whereas Goljan seems to just dive right in. an example of this is COPD and cardiomyopathy. both times BRS says "COPD is... exemplified by..." then lists asthma, emphysema, etc. goljan doesn't even use the term COPD and just starts describing astha, emphysema, etc separately. same thing for cardiomyopathy. BRS starts out saying cardiomyopathy is disease of heart muscle without inflammation, HTN, CHD, CAD, or valvular disease, etc. goljan again just dives right in. no intro, no broad overview.
so in summary i think both books could be improved. i think goljan is too rigid in his presentation order, and that hurts him on emphasizing key points. BRS is good at summarizing broad topics like COPD early on. BRS is good for a quick hit of key facts, goljan is better for a more complete understanding but at the risk of getting lost on peripheral info and not going away with knowing what are the real key points of a certain pathology.
that is just my opinion.
