Squire's = good basics; one step up?

[Browser]

1) Squire's offers a great straightforward basic understanding of radiology. Is there a text written in a similar straightforward manner that is a step above Squire's?

2) Any MUST reads in Radiology textbooks? ~600 page range written in a informal way?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[cowme]

Squires is garbage. It's 400 pages that adds nothing more than a Wikipedia article on radiology

Felsons is the only text worth a damn before residency

 

[shark2000]

Nothing really worth reading before residency. Don't waste your time.

 

[Browser]

Warning: For those interested radiology directed med students. Please do not listen to the above posters. They sound grumpy. Although I can only speak from my experience, I found Squire's to be a blessed text for someone who has a very cursory knowledge of anatomy and radiological images. Squire's is a great text for getting your feet wet. I feel WAY more comfortable looking at films. Felson's is great too.

I did some research and purchased a few more radiology books, I will post which one have a lot of personality and therefore are less textbook and more like a teacher sitting next to you.

 

[shark2000]

Warning: For those interested radiology directed med students. Please do not listen to the above posters. They sound grumpy. Although I can only speak from my experience, I found Squire's to be a blessed text for someone who has a very cursory knowledge of anatomy and radiological images. Squire's is a great text for getting your feet wet. I feel WAY more comfortable looking at films. Felson's is great too.

I did some research and purchased a few more radiology books, I will post which one have a lot of personality and therefore are less textbook and more like a teacher sitting next to you.

Could you please explain to me what is your definition of interested radiology directed medical student.

That is great that an MS4/intern has read a book and now feels comfortable looking at images. WOW.

 

[shark2000]

Because it was raised many times my few opinions:

1- whatever you study before residency is a waste of time. Also what is really the point of even learning a few random things.

2- If you want to be a radiologist, you have to obtain organized knowledge of it. It means you have to learn all the pattern that you may potentially see and the differentials for each pattern in addition to limitations of each modality.

3- It is a slow day to day gradual process. You will learn stuff in theory than apply them in practice, them forget many of them. Then again refresh, ..... That is the reason residency is 4 years and also you do a fellowship.

4- You are going to be a consultant of another physician. Superficial knowledge is useless. You are going to be a specialist or subspecialist. That should be the ultimate goal.

What I recommend according to my experience in residency and now fellowship:

1- If you think you have to study before residency do it. But be aware it is useless.

2- Start you residency with good energy and refreshed. Try to have a few days of off before starting.

3- Start you first rotation with the idea of "I don't know anything". Ask as much questions as you do not know. Try to not pass anything. If you see anything on the image either CT or Xray that you do not know, ASK, ASK.

4- Read, read, read. I recommend two ways:

a- Problem oriented which helps a lot. It is the true way that you obtain practical useful knowledge. It means if you see a pneumothorax in the morning, read it the same day. I have found radiographics articles and statdx very helpful. Read about it and more importantly look at the images. Esp when you are new, IMAGES can help a lot. Look at as much images as you can.

b- Classic organized reading: Requisites are great, other than one or two exception. For body I think Webb body CT is great for first rotation. Brant and Helms is really widely used, but I do not recommend. It is a bit of everything without details or deep understanding. You can use it briefly on first year, but is really useless. Overall, you have to read specialty oriented books. These combined books are not a good as specialty oriented ones.

5- Learn anatomy: and by anatomy I mean imaging anatomy and not medical school anatomy textbook. It is a gradual never ending process. Even as an attending you find aspects of anatomy that you need to learn. It can not be summarized in one textbook. Good references are statdx anatomy section and your attending/fellows next to you. Ask them about the structures you do not know when reading a CT or MRI with them. Some parts of radiology like temporal bone, Neck and MSK MRI are mostly about anatomy.

 

[Browser]

Could you please explain to me what is your definition of interested radiology directed medical student.

That is great that an MS4/intern has read a book and now feels comfortable looking at images. WOW.

To answer your question about what is an interested directed medical student: A stated student is a person who enjoys reading about radiology and is interested in becoming a radiologist.

Your second statement: I will assume that you are being sarcastic, which is lame, especially over text/forums (in addition it makes you appear even more depressed/angry.. so relax). In regards to your actual point that reading a book will make a student obviously more comfortable in an area. That is not always true, we have all read "bad" books that seem to complicate subjects or books written in a manner than makes them unreadable and therefore a waste of money upon arrival.

I would appreciate it if you would stick to constructive comments that add to everyone's learning. You do not have to read this post.

Best wishes.

 

[Browser]

Because it was raised many times my few opinions:


[... 3- It is a slow day to day gradual process... 4- Read, read, read. I recommend two ways: a. Problem oriented which helps a lot.. IMAGES can help a lot. Look at as much images as you can. 5- Learn anatomy.. It is a gradual never ending process...]

Thank you Shark for your SECOND response although I disagree about not starting now. I think there is confusion regarding the "why" for reading early. My "why" and the "why" for "interested medical students" is purely interested. This is not anxiety over starting residency. This is not trying to gain a hold on other students. And certainly, this is not trying to learn how to become a radiologist before residency.

I was simply asking, does anyone know (distilled from that arduous book sticky already present) which books are "readable". Books that are good and interested reads that familiarize the reader with looking at images WHILE feeling like a professor/friend is sitting next to you.

Thanks for your time so far, I did not mean to come off annoying. I apologize if I did, but the responses so far have been less than constructive. I have found a few more books based on amazon.com reviews that may fit this bill. I will report back when I have read them (assuming they are readable).

 

[DrBowtie]

I didn't really care for Squire's. Learning Radiology book and Felsons were pretty much the only things I needed as a medical student. Maybe Radiology Recall for some quick pimp questions.

No other great books IMO are directed at below an R1 level.

 

[cowme]

Warning: For those interested radiology directed med students. Please do not listen to the above posters. They sound grumpy. Although I can only speak from my experience, I found Squire's to be a blessed text for someone who has a very cursory knowledge of anatomy and radiological images. Squire's is a great text for getting your feet wet. I feel WAY more comfortable looking at films. Felson's is great too.

I did some research and purchased a few more radiology books, I will post which one have a lot of personality and therefore are less textbook and more like a teacher sitting next to you.

Please. Squires is complete garbage. You must have had no rads exposure if you really found it to be a "blessed text"

Felsons, learningradiology, and Webb are far better intro texts, but still pretty low yield without practicing radiology

 

[GMDMD]

I thought squire's was decent as a medical student. I got through a good portion of it, but in retrospect there was about 1% retention.

Radiology is simply too huge to make a dent in unless you're doing it fulltime, at the reading station, dictating reports. You simply cannot get good at reading anything until you've seen dozens to hundreds of them. Stick to smaller goals- the basics and repeat over and over again.

Read Felson's. Then read it again. Then stick to basic radiology texts that will hammer the simple stuff which you can potentially retain- squire's, learning radiology, etc. Try some of the basic tutorials here- http://www.med-ed.virginia.edu/courses/rad/

If you can just get semi-decent at chest xrays that is a great, manageable goal that will take you far clinically, especially during your intern year.

 

[Browser]

It is true that I had almost no knowledge of radiology and therefore likely found Squire's to be helpful. To the other comments, I peacefully disagree. Best of luck everyone, if I could close this thread I would. I will not be revisiting it.

And to GMDMD, Squire's book itself disagrees with your point of reading felson's twice. If you actually read it you would've seen his 10 greatest points. One of which is to not look at the same thing twice the same way. No wonder you don't retain very much 😉

 

[omarsaleh66]

1) Squire's offers a great straightforward basic understanding of radiology. Is there a text written in a similar straightforward manner that is a step above Squire's?

2) Any MUST reads in Radiology textbooks? ~600 page range written in a informal way?

The next step up from squires is brant and helms but its 1600 pages. Most people don't read it until they are rads residents.

Agree w others , felsons or maybe a intro rads ER book is good for med students or skim squires for the pics

 

[MossPoh]

Squires isn't bad, but it is more directed towards non-radiologists interested in the basics. Learning radiology had a little more depth. Felson's is good, but I get annoyed with the programmed text.

It is a gradual process and the yield is low from it, but it isn't any different than people interested in IM spending extra time reading Harrison's or OB/GYN reading Williams. People do it because it interests them and they derive a little pleasure from feeling like they are learning stuff. Most research in learning points towards it not being useless and may lead to increased retention later on, but that is something impossible for most to quantify when they feel completely bombarded later on.