school material vs review books

[fatefeather]

---

Members do not see this ad.

.

 

[Ophthoseidon]

Right now you probably won't have much time to go all out on both if your exams are professor written. It also depends on what you're currently doing, so it's hard to answer the question without a little more info

 

[Low Flow]

This is bound to happen at least to some extent in most, if not all, curricula. From musculoskeletal last semester, I can recall one instance where our pathology prof went into so much detail on all the soft tissue tumors, etc., whereas they were barely touched in FA/Pathoma. I made sure to hit the high points in Pathoma hard, and then fit in what I could from class material for the most part. Despite lecturing on putative "minutia", I found that they still emphasize the same high points on the exams (i.e. the points FA/Pathoma emphasize). You just need to fine tune your studying in accordance with your professors, as it will be slightly different at every school. Just make sure you understand what's in Pathoma at the bare minimum, then go from there.

 

[fatefeather]

This is bound to happen at least to some extent in most, if not all, curricula. From musculoskeletal last semester, I can recall one instance where our pathology prof went into so much detail on all the soft tissue tumors, etc., whereas they were barely touched in FA/Pathoma. I made sure to hit the high points in Pathoma hard, and then fit in what I could from class material for the most part. Despite lecturing on putative "minutia", I found that they still emphasize the same high points on the exams (i.e. the points FA/Pathoma emphasize). You just need to fine tune your studying in accordance with your professors, as it will be slightly different at every school. Just make sure you understand what's in Pathoma at the bare minimum, then go from there.

I just don't know what to focus on anymore. I use Goljan and that thing is more than 600 pages. If the lecture material is not going to be on Step 1 then I don't see any point studying them.

 

[fatefeather]

Right now you probably won't have much time to go all out on both if your exams are professor written. It also depends on what you're currently doing, so it's hard to answer the question without a little more info

Thanks for the reply. Here is a good example: Goljan says anti-dsDNA and anti-Sm antibodies have 99% and 100% specificity for SLE respectively. My lecture notes on the other hand say it's only 60% and 30%.

 

[Low Flow]

Thanks for the reply. Here is a good example: Goljan says anti-dsDNA and anti-Sm antibodies have 99% and 100% specificity for SLE respectively. My lecture notes on the other hand say it's only 60% and 30%.

From UpToDate: "Anti-dsDNA and anti-Sm antibodies are highly specific for SLE, but anti-Sm antibodies lack sensitivity [6,7]. Anti-dsDNA and anti-Sm antibodies are seen in approximately 70 and 30 percent of patients with SLE, respectively." I.e., not every patient will have them, but when present, it's highly specific for SLE. You just have to clarify these things with a professor or the internet. There is always bound to be some discontinuity, especially with sensitivity/specificity numbers.