is rapid review pathology (goljian) a textbook?

[yowhatup]

I have never had pathology yet. I have completed physiology. Can I start reading rapid review Goljan without having any prior pathology exposure and understand pathology? I heard it is an excellent book for step 1, so can I start reading it now or is it mostly a review book?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[LonghornDoc12]

Goljan and the rest of the books in the Rapid Review Series are bullet point style reviews of the subject material. It might be hard to really understand whats going on if you have no pathology background. Maybe don't start with Robbins, but maybe a longer text would be a good way to get acquainted with the subject. Try syllabus/notes from students at your institution.

If you are just looking to straight up memorize bullet points I guess it might work, but I dont see how that would be the best way to spend your time.

 

[greg1184]

As mentioned before, RR pathology is written in outline form. It requires prior background knowledge in pathology to make it coherent. If you want to read up on pathology, then Robbins is your best bet.

 

[PistolPete]

Note that the newest version will be coming out August 14th, so if you were thinking of buying a copy, I'd wait until then.

 

[KnuxNole]

If the notes are really good, is it probable that Goljan's book is sufficient enough? I haven't read a real textbook in med school yet, and it seems like Pathology is the only medical school subject where there isn't a single person who does not use textbook and was wondering why this is the case. Maybe it's school dependent, but are path notes generally vague?

 

[stickshift]

If the notes are really good, is it probable that Goljan's book is sufficient enough? I haven't read a real textbook in med school yet, and it seems like Pathology is the only medical school subject where there isn't a single person who does not use textbook and was wondering why this is the case. Maybe it's school dependent, but are path notes generally vague?

I never used a textbook for path. Then again, my school's path notes were very good.

 

[Orthodoc40]

I never used a textbook for path. Then again, my school's path notes were very good.

I never cracked open the Robbins for path, either. Just used the class notes.

 

[Fighting Illini]

Note that the newest version will be coming out August 14th, so if you were thinking of buying a copy, I'd wait until then.

Newest version of what, Goljan or Robbins?

 

[VoiceofReason]

if you feel like you really learned everything well first year (and your NBME shelf exams evince this fact), then i'm of the opinion that you can do path in the following way:

Read goljan primarily but every time you come across something that is even one tiny bit unclear, or if you don't think you understand a mechanismal explanation with crystal clarity, go to robbins and get the full narrative. Thats how i'm doing things and I think its the most efficient way.

 

[mq123]

Newest version of what, Goljan or Robbins?

Goljan.

 

[medguy83]

I'll be starting my second year in about a week or so and have been attempting a brief review of the upcoming material (Path specifically). I got Robbins which no doubt has the paper weight quality of several boulders as well as the BRS and Goljan review books. I actually like the BRS version as far as a brief overview is concerned. Goljan seems to be good for jogging the old memory bank with topics you've already covered. That being said, I've heard nothing but rave reviews concerning Goljan by some 3rd years after taking step 1.