Gray's Atlas of Anatomy > Netter

[The Angriest Bird]

The message: If you are MS1 and studying anatomy, go for Gray's Atlas instead of Netter.

I'm currently a General Surgery intern. I was recently looking for a good anatomy atlas. Truth be told, there aren't many anatomy atlas books out there beside Netter.

Then I ran across this book called "Gray's Atlas of Anatomy". Wow, I'm completely stunned by its quality. Most importantly, I am surprised by how much better it is than Netter's. Now I totally regret that I went through my entire medical school without having this book.

Gray's has > 500 plates, compared to Netter's 150ish. The images are computer-generated, highly accurate, appealing, and descriptive. The printing technique is superb. The most impressive plates (I literally showed them to my surgery colleagues and they went "WOW!") are the posterior view of the pancreas, the full-page inguinal anatomy, and posterior view of the abdominal wall.

I guess there is a lot of inertia of using Netter, but I highly recommend you to switch.

P.S. I know I sound a lot like a rep from Gray's publisher.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[NOsquid]

Surprised you hadn't heard of it before. I found using more than 1 atlas helpful. Rohen's is good too.

 

[SN2ed]

Which Netter are you using? The Atlas of Human Anatomy has a little over 500 plates. For me, I found using Netter helped give me an idea where everything was located. But when I really learned my anatomy is when I would spend time with the bodies and translate what I saw in Netter to an actual body.

 

[bomgd3]

You're really never heard of Gray's? Did you go to med school outside of the US?

 

[st0w]

Thieme is better than all of the them - the illustrated atlases, at least. Hard to compare to Rohen for preparing for practical exams.

 

[UAAWolf]

The message: If you are MS1 and studying anatomy, go for Gray's Atlas instead of Netter.

I'm currently a General Surgery intern. I was recently looking for a good anatomy atlas. Truth be told, there aren't many anatomy atlas books out there beside Netter.

Then I ran across this book called "Gray's Atlas of Anatomy". Wow, I'm completely stunned by its quality. Most importantly, I am surprised by how much better it is than Netter's. Now I totally regret that I went through my entire medical school without having this book.

Gray's has > 500 plates, compared to Netter's 150ish. The images are computer-generated, highly accurate, appealing, and descriptive. The printing technique is superb. The most impressive plates (I literally showed them to my surgery colleagues and they went "WOW!") are the posterior view of the pancreas, the full-page inguinal anatomy, and posterior view of the abdominal wall.

I guess there is a lot of inertia of using Netter, but I highly recommend you to switch.

P.S. I know I sound a lot like a rep from Gray's publisher.

I found atlases useless. I read Greys for students, Did netter flashcards, and studied in the lab. Grey's has literally everything you need to know to ace a test. Netters overwhelmed me, but others in my class loved it

 

[crasiman]

Check out the Thieme Atlas of Anatomy. Better than both imo. One issue, of course, is what your course director/classmates tend to use. It's helpful to be able to use references from others.

 

[osumc2014]

I've never found netter's to be all that useful, don't know why some people swear by them

 

[Staradmiral]

What netter's are you using? Mine has over 550 plates

 

[metallica81788]

I've never found netter's to be all that useful, don't know why some people swear by them

Agreed. It looks like a book of paintings to me.

I like Thieme. 👍

 

[COdoubleMO2theN]

Rohens

 

[secants]

Rohen's was great for lab practical's and I've been hearing about Theime more frequently as well, too bad anatomy is already over for me; used netter's, didn't a big fan, liked the flash cards better.

 

[TANSTAAFL]

Thieme is better than all of the them.

I've never agreed with anything more.

There is no comparison.

 

[Staradmiral]

Netter's is far superior then either Thieme or Gray's. Although they are not real life pictures, their painting style makes them easy to remember. Theime is too long, too wordy. It'll take you 5 hours of Thieme to memorzie what you could in 3hours with netter's. its simply Its inefficient. Thieme also lacks many "in situ" pictures. Someone they show arteries and muscles isolated instead of together with the rest of the body. This is poor studying for practical tests because yu can't see which arteries lie on top of which muscles, etc. Far too long for a med student's crowded schedule. its also like 3x the price, at least in my area.

This comes from someone who got 96% in anatomy.

 

[VisionaryTics]

Netter's is far superior then either Thieme or Gray's. Although they are not real life pictures, their painting style makes them easy to remember. Theime is too long, too wordy. It'll take you 5 hours of Thieme to memorzie what you could in 3hours with netter's. its simply Its inefficient. Thieme also lacks many "in situ" pictures. Someone they show arteries and muscles isolated instead of together with the rest of the body. This is poor studying for practical tests because yu can't see which arteries lie on top of which muscles, etc. Far too long for a med student's crowded schedule. its also like 3x the price, at least in my area.

This comes from someone who got 96% in anatomy.

I think the Netter's can be too much for someone running through anatomy for the first time. Having learned the subject, you realize the elegance of his drawings and how he was able to demonstrate structural and functional relationships.

I never got much out of Netter when I was learning the material for the first time, but now I can see the genius that has made him the standard for so many years.

 

[SirGecko]

Rohen's was great for lab practical's and I've been hearing about Theime more frequently as well, too bad anatomy is already over for me; used netter's, didn't a big fan, liked the flash cards better.

I thought rohen's was fine for testing yourself but not super great for learning. I checked a copy out from the library but didn't buy it. Netter for the win. (and I have heard Theime is good as well but as I already had three atlases when I was doing anatomy I didn't feel like picking it up) His paintings are way better than photos or even more realistic paintings for learning anatomical relationships.

Grant's isn't terribly great by the way. (it is the one I was issued by the school)