pathophysio for the board verus brs path

[docsri]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi I am new to this forum. And have to say that I love it. I was just wondering you all swear by Brs Path but how does it compare to Pathophysio for the board and wards? I bought Pathophysio and loved it, but now am wondering if I should by Brs? Is it missing things that Brs has?
Also, is the kaplan physio book enough, or do I have to buy brs physio?
And lastly if you study pathophysio, due you have to study path, and physio seperately again? 😕 Thanks again

 

[quideam]

I use both, and i think that they're very complemetary to each other in terms of content and format. BRS has more pathology details and minutia; it includes some diseases, etc., that B&W doesn't. On the other hand, B&W is more clinical and includes a lot of pathophysiology that BRS doesn't have, since it's more strictly path. It also has more clinical correlates which is helpful once you've reviewed the physiology and pathology for a particular subject. So, for me at least, what works is reviewing BRS physiology and BRS pathology, and once i'm comfortable with all of that material, then I go over B&W to help integrate things. So, in summary, I don't think that B&W is a substitute for BRS, but it's a great addtion to it.

 

[docsri]

Thanks so much for the advice, I will definately follow it. 🙂

 

[BigRedZippo]

Stick with BRS- there isn't a huge need to know clinical information on the exam, usually the phys/path behind it.

 

[coolmavs]

There are lots of people on the forum who have taken the test and done more than well. Some have used BRS and some B&W Pathophysio and some the two combined. IMHO, pathophysio complements BRS on reasons similar to those mentioned Quideam.