Rapid Review Path vs. BRS Path

[lightnk102]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hey all.

I just picked up Goljan's Rapid Review for Path. I like the clinical information included in RR that's not found as consistently in BRS path. RR also seems to give more background before presenting the pathology and has handy accompanying pictures (promotes more understanding than rote memorization). RR is also ~600 pages worth of information (compared to BRS 400 pages). I find myself wondering if everything in there is worth studying or if it's too much.

For BRS path - I like the many bolded terms and the "key" points. It also seems more succinct, but also less tied-together than RR does. It's also been the cornerstone for boards studying for everyone that I've spoken to.

I'm trying to limit my sources for pathology to 2. First Aid + a review book. Since studying for the boards seems like a huge efficiency test (how well can you remember the most salient and most likely testable points in 4-5 weeks), I'd like to choose the correct books to be marking up during the school year.

What do you guys think?

 

[BPJ09]

I feel rapid review will help you actually remember the material. After studying BRS for a couple of hours it seems to run together. Another great feature with Rapid Review is you can supplement it with the audio cd's. Put them on your IPOD and you can listen when you're working out or on long car rides.

 

[UCLAstudent]

I own both. I've had to study a little for finals over the winter break and tried supplementing with both path review books. I much prefer the format of BRS --- but Rapid Review does have more information, so I'm not sure what to use for boards.

 

[Taurus]

I've decided to use BRS as my main study path source. The bolding, underlining, and key points they tell me what's really important. Goljan is good, but there's so much and you don't know what's stressed. I'll review Goljan later to for the pics though.

 

[71263]

Im a bit biased, since Schneider and Szanto teach at my school. The BRS path, however, is exactly what it says, a review. Its a good thing to study after youve learned the material once, before tests, and before boards.

However, DO NOT use this as your main reference when studying for the class. Its extremely dry, mostly all text. One chapter will take you forever to get through, and you wont be prepared for pictoral pathology. Look at other sources first, then go to BRS. Its a powerful tool, but only if used correctly.

 

[doctorp82]

Late in the fall I bought the 2nd ed. Rapid Review Path, which I think is better than BRS, but I will still read both RR and BRS at the same time when covering some material, because I think that both lack some info the other ultimately covers.

For instance, regarding TTP, BRS mentions that the vWF metalloprotease is ADAMTS 13, whereas RR doesn't mention ADAMTS 13. BRS leaves out subclassifications of AML, whereas RR has them in a chart M0 - M7. BRS also doesn't say anything about Auer rods, t(15,17) translocation, or lots of other details on AML that are in RR.

If you have both BRS 3rd and RR 2nd, I think it's easy to read both simultaenously, and annotate both at the same time. Just think of all the extra calories you can burn to lose resolution weight with both in your bag

 

[vtucci]

I have both and like RR better but that is me. BRS is a good review as well.

 

[lightnk102]

Hrm. I'm thinking I'll use RR only when I listen to the Goljan audio. It helps me to be able to see the words as I'm hearing them, and I'll likely use BRS and FA for annotations/review before the boards. I'll use RR for review "only in case of extra time". I allotted an extra half week so hopefully I'll be able to look at the RR also.

I'm afraid of using RR to replace the BRS because BRS is such an old classic, but I don't want to give it up. I hate having 3 sources. 😡

 

[Pewl]

That's an interesting strategy.

How does this strategy sound to you guys:
1. Use BRS and FA as the primary sources for path
2. Use RR Path ONLY while listening to Goljan Audio
3. Hmm.. what do you use the goljan notes for then?

 

[jsimny]

BRS + webpath pictures are more than enough for the board, and path for classes. I have read the whole book multiple times with my course works and board, I was pretty satisfied with the content except AML (subclasses) mentioned above. Also, the first few chapters cover most genetic & biochem related diseases from FA, you should read..

I also used MGH pocket medicine to supplement clinical presentation/dx/tx. Those three combination was really helpful for both courseworks and board.

 

[Pewl]

BRS + webpath pictures are more than enough for the board, and path for classes. I have read the whole book multiple times with my course works and board, I was pretty satisfied with the content except AML (subclasses) mentioned above. Also, the first few chapters cover most genetic & biochem related diseases from FA, you should read..

I also used MGH pocket medicine to supplement clinical presentation/dx/tx. Those three combination was really helpful for both courseworks and board.

So you didn't use rapid review path or goljan audio at all?

 

[jsimny]

I didn't use Rapid Review of Path or Goljan's audio but I heard lots of good things about it.

best way to study is to pick one you may like, stick to it during course works and board study. I still remember where the specific information is in the BRS path....

 

[Pewl]

I didn't use Rapid Review of Path or Goljan's audio but I heard lots of good things about it.

best way to study is to pick one you may like, stick to it during course works and board study. I still remember where the specific information is in the BRS path....

Yeah, following along in class with these review books is the toughest part, because after you've spent so much time on the school material, you suddenly need to switch to this other book for the same material! I wonder if by using RR you still need BRS physiology since RR supposedly integrates it all really well.

 

[domer621]

I wonder if by using RR you still need BRS physiology since RR supposedly integrates it all really well.

You need BRS Phys. Just because Goljan has good pathophys integrations doesn't mean he covers every phys concept. And they really like basic phys concepts on the Step 1.

 

[Pewl]

You need BRS Phys. Just because Goljan has good pathophys integrations doesn't mean he covers every phys concept. And they really like basic phys concepts on the Step 1.

At least physio is mostly concepts. I've always hated memorizing laundry lists *cough*micro!

 

[HarveyCushing]

Yeah, following along in class with these review books is the toughest part, because after you've spent so much time on the school material, you suddenly need to switch to this other book for the same material! I wonder if by using RR you still need BRS physiology since RR supposedly integrates it all really well.

I haven't even started MSI yet, however from my research I am planning on using BRS Physio and BRS Path as the solid foundation for my studying. After going through those two a couple of times, I was thinking of switching over to Goljan as a way to tie the two together. Don't know how much time you have left to study but it might be something worth considering?

 

[flumazenil]

RR path is just that- a pathology book. definately try to use BRS physio or anyt other supplemental phys book. also, RR isnt for everyone. The bullet format took me a while to get used to and whats funny is when describing a major topic..such as various testicular cancers for example, he will give a brief bulletin on it, then you have to turn the page and in .00005 font is a chart that has tons of info on each type of cancer, then he moves on to the next bullet- so the main point is make sure you read the tables carefully in RR path. It is all there plus way more but the info is all cramped

 

[Pewl]

I haven't even started MSI yet, however from my research I am planning on using BRS Physio and BRS Path as the solid foundation for my studying. After going through those two a couple of times, I was thinking of switching over to Goljan as a way to tie the two together. Don't know how much time you have left to study but it might be something worth considering?

Heh, I have a year of time. I just want to get an idea of resources so i'm not scrambling when the time comes.

 

[SoCuteMD]

I haven't even started MSI yet, however from my research I am planning on using BRS Physio and BRS Path as the solid foundation for my studying. After going through those two a couple of times, I was thinking of switching over to Goljan as a way to tie the two together. Don't know how much time you have left to study but it might be something worth considering?

You really don't want to use BRS Path as the "foundation" of anything. It's a summary - use at as the cherry on top of your ice cream sundae. I personally would just ditch BRS path for RR Path. I felt RR path did a much better job of hitting the points that showed up on my path tests and I felt it was helpful for the boards.

 

[HarveyCushing]

You really don't want to use BRS Path as the "foundation" of anything. It's a summary - use at as the cherry on top of your ice cream sundae. I personally would just ditch BRS path for RR Path. I felt RR path did a much better job of hitting the points that showed up on my path tests and I felt it was helpful for the boards.

I don't know what you are trying to say, but from what I have read on old threads and from friends taking step 1, they all recommended either BRS or Goljan as the foundation for studying path on step 1. The foundation obviously is to do well first and second year. However the foundation when studying/reviewing for step 1 should be either one of those books. It is largely up to personal preference. I was recommending maybe using BRS first as the foundation for studying and then using Goljan to tie in the loose ends since he incorporates other areas into RR.

 

[Pewl]

I don't know what you are trying to say, but from what I have read on old threads and from friends taking step 1, they all recommended either BRS or Goljan as the foundation for studying path on step 1. The foundation obviously is to do well first and second year. However the foundation when studying/reviewing for step 1 should be either one of those books. It is largely up to personal preference. I was recommending maybe using BRS first as the foundation for studying and then using Goljan to tie in the loose ends since he incorporates other areas into RR.

I think what she meant was that you shouldn't use Step 1 review books to help learn the material the first time. They are meant as 'review' once you have already learned the material.

 

[SoCuteMD]

I don't know what you are trying to say, but from what I have read on old threads and from friends taking step 1, they all recommended either BRS or Goljan as the foundation for studying path on step 1. The foundation obviously is to do well first and second year. However the foundation when studying/reviewing for step 1 should be either one of those books. It is largely up to personal preference. I was recommending maybe using BRS first as the foundation for studying and then using Goljan to tie in the loose ends since he incorporates other areas into RR.

What I was trying to say is that BRS/RR are not a foundation for anything. They are good studying for Step 1, but from reading your post I couldn't tell when you said "foundation" whether you meant for the course or for Step 1. Since you haven't started MS1 yet, I assumed you meant the course - hence my statement that they are not a suitable foundation. Either is perfectly adequate for Step 1 (although I have a personal preference for RR).

The best studying you can do for path is during 2nd year - if you don't master it then, it's gonna be tough to play catch up for the boards.

 

[HarveyCushing]

What I was trying to say is that BRS/RR are not a foundation for anything. They are good studying for Step 1, but from reading your post I couldn't tell when you said "foundation" whether you meant for the course or for Step 1. Since you haven't started MS1 yet, I assumed you meant the course - hence my statement that they are not a suitable foundation. Either is perfectly adequate for Step 1 (although I have a personal preference for RR).

The best studying you can do for path is during 2nd year - if you don't master it then, it's gonna be tough to play catch up for the boards.

I was referring to studying for Step 1 since that is what the OP was asking about. Sorry that I wasn't clear enough. I'm not naive enough to think that Board Review books will be adequate for class material, if anything they might be a good supplement to the class material.

 

[HarveyCushing]

I think what she meant was that you shouldn't use Step 1 review books to help learn the material the first time. They are meant as 'review' once you have already learned the material.

Yeah I guess she thought I was referring to studying for class rather than Step 1. Now after the clarification does my recommendation hold any water for studying for Step 1? Seems like BRS does some things really well and that Goljan does other things really well. It would be nice to use both of them to some extent.