studying anatomy solely from student gray's/netter's atlas/moore....productive?

[thecalccobra]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Basically, I'm reading from moore's. I have read half of the upper limb from moore's and have supplemented it with netter's and a little bit of Gray's. Can I keep doing this?

It seems as though people don't read the text as much for anatomy but just use flashcards and the atlas. My process is very lengthy because I have to read multiple times to actually commit to memory a lot of information like innervation, insertion, origin.

Also, is a lot of information in moore not needed since it is very detailed?

Any advantages/disadvantages to what I'm doing?

 

[PeepshowJohnny]

Depends heavily on how your individual school does their anatomy course.

I know at mine, reading the textbook was considered way overkill (and only recommended to those who were really struggling) because pretty much all questions for both the lecture exam and lab practical could be learned by reading the syllabus and studying in lab.

However, I'm sure this is not the experience everywhere. Ask some upperclassmen how they studied and get what the consensus was.

 

[Blade28]

I second the suggestion to ask the upperclassman for what worked for them (read: to see how much depth of knowledge was required).

In med school I just used Netter's to supplement our gross dissections.

 

[bodonid]

I am skimming Moore, reading about 60% or so. I have found that by the time I get through the lectures, Netter's, Rohen, lab, etc., most of the stuff in moore I already know. Moore just lets me see things from a different perspective once I already have most of the material down. But definately don't read for the details. Just let it supplement the big picture stuff.

 

[Concordia]

Personally, I felt that studying the lecture/dissection notes along w/ Netter was more than enough. I only read some passages from Moore (borrowed from a classmate) when I felt that I needed some extra help (mm involved in vocal cord movement and mm involved in eye movement) w/ stuff I didn't see very well in lab.

 

[Mr Cookie Pants]

Our lecture notes are trash. I like Student Gray's, supplemented with Netters and then Rohens before practicals. I hated Moores and used it for 1 day.

 

[Mr. Tee]

Our anatomy class had printed course notes already so I read from that. I also read Grant's dissector VERY THOROUGHLY to get a proper orientation of different structures. I stared at Netter's plates to have everything sink in. Netter's flashcards were key, too.

I have Essential Clinical Anatomy but rarely touched it. As a previous person said, textbooks were overkill.

 

[sprinkibrio]

Do you read Gray's atlas or Gray's for students? If it's Gray's for students, I don't understand why you would want to read that AND Moore and Dalley. Just do Gray's for students, and ONCE! It should only have to be done once to stick since you've already read the syllabus, went to class, went to lab, and read the lab instructions

 

[psipsina]

For me class notes + netters = gold. I don't think I touched Moore and I did very well. This of course is a school specific situation. Also not that I'm a very visual learner so talking myself thru a Netters plate just works better in my brain than reading a description of the anatomy.

 

[xanthomondo]

Anyone else think that Moore's text is absolute garbage?

 

[Dirt]

Anyone else think that Moore's text is absolute garbage?

I feel like their stand alone depictions of arteries, nerves and veins are the best of any book.

The text itself is junk, but so is pretty much any anatomy text.

 

[SQUmedic]

Moore is not trach but just tooo stime consuming. I regret not using my class notes and just solely depending on moore.

I feel frustrated !

 

[badasshairday]

Anyone else think that Moore's text is absolute garbage?

It is garbage. WAY TOO BIG. I'm glad I didn't buy it. I just use Clinical Anatomy Made Ridiculously simple and read relevent parts, review class notes, and use an atlas.

 

[FatherOblivion]

I'll be the lone voice in favor of Moore. It might not be the most efficient way to approach things, but it's incredibly complete. If you're a fast reader like myself Moore is a great way to make sure you're not missing anything. If it feels like too much time then you can always get mini-moore which still has all of the blue boxes. It's also worth noting that I'm at a school with no detailed syllabus for anatomy so a text is more helpful.

 

[Isoprop]

I'll be the lone voice in favor of Moore. It might not be the most efficient way to approach things, but it's incredibly complete. If you're a fast reader like myself Moore is a great way to make sure you're not missing anything. If it feels like too much time then you can always get mini-moore which still has all of the blue boxes. It's also worth noting that I'm at a school with no detailed syllabus for anatomy so a text is more helpful.

unless they changed things with the new versions, the blue boxes in big moore and baby moore aren't the same. also, there's more in big moore (no pun intended).

 

[elderjack21]

I'll be the lone voice in favor of Moore. It might not be the most efficient way to approach things, but it's incredibly complete. .

I agree. Moore offers clarity to things that I feel I need a little better understanding of. I definitely don't read more than a few pages of it per section though. The tables and diagrams are helpful.

Netter's is great if you don't want to understand how anything works and just want to get a cartoon version of how the structures look and their relationships.

And of course when it comes to passing the test, lecture slides are where you make your big money.

 

[Non-TradTulsa]

Basically, I'm reading from moore's. I have read half of the upper limb from moore's and have supplemented it with netter's and a little bit of Gray's. Can I keep doing this?

Well, it's OK with me personally but if you're asking, "will I survive doing this?" - then I dunno. You'll find out on exams, I'm sure.

Seriously, I tried starting out anatomy by reading everything in Moore's. Had I not caught-on to the fact that there was no way I would ever have enough time to read the Moore's material, I would have bombed. Moore's is a good book, but the only time I ever read it was when I truly didn't understand something.

I don't think you can learn gross simply by looking at Netter's. If you can, you certainly never got the "29yo male stabbed in the posterior triangle" type questions that everyone else gets.

We used BRS Gross Anatomy by Chung as our textbook - the fact that Chung was my teacher might have had a little something to do with that. The most recent edition has some really glaring typos - I think Dr. Chung went through the galley proofs way too fast and/or used assistants to proof, but it's still a remarkable book. Every nerve, every muscle - it's all there in very compressed form and the "clinical correlations" will give you enough information to answer the stabbing questions.

You learn to forgive the book's few glaring deficiencies. The illustrations are complete and utter cr*p - I used to cross-reference paragraphs to plates in Netter's. Second, I think Korean is not real big on gender-specific pronouns - Chung tends to say "he" when he means "she" - and he used to get irritated when we would call him down on this - as if it didn't matter. Now, when a test question refers to "he" and the correct answer is "ovarian artery", you get a little upset over this. Finally, in the last edition, there are a few practice questions where the answer is just 100% wrong - they listed the wrong answer letter and Dr. Chung didn't catch it.

Even with all those deficiencies, however, I still think that the book is quite valuable for gross. I used something else for Step 1, since his book is way too detailed for review and gross is low-yield. His practice questions are gold (mind you, I was also taking the tests that he wrote!).

 

[badasshairday]

I used something else for Step 1, since his book is way too detailed for review and gross is low-yield.

What did you end up using for boards review?

 

[Non-TradTulsa]

What did you end up using for boards review?

I glanced at USMLE Road Map - Gross Anatomy. Really, any of the board review books except BRS are fine - Chung's BRS Gross Anatomy is just way over-detailed. You really won't spend much time on gross, though, in your board review - it's extremely low-yield. I can only remember a couple of questions on anatomy on my Step 1, and they were things I knew without reviewing. You'll be reviewing a lot of gross over again (indirectly) when you go through physiology, so don't stress over it too much.

 

[montessori2md]

I have big Moore, and I'm using it mostly for the blue boxes (the only reason I bought it, it's true, they are different from little Moore), and the CDs which come with it are actually useful, especially for muscles. I'm visually ******ed and don't like to live in the lab, so I'm using Moore and Rohen to help me to understand 3-D structures and how it all fits together. I like Rohen for reviewing stuff from lab. I like Moore; to me, it was worth the cash, because I like just a little bit more information than what I actually need to know. Helps me to see why I have to know it.

That said, that's supplemental to the course. The syllabus and netter's flashcards are the low hanging fruit, for sure.

 

[.surgical.]

By far the best study tool was time alone in the lab with my donor.

 

[MilkmanAl]

I'm loving a combo of BRS Gross and Rohen's with some Netter's tossed in for good measure. It seems to be working well so far.

 

[Isoprop]

By far the best study tool was time alone in the lab with my donor.

agreed, but only for practicals. atlases and lab time won't cut it for the lecture exams. reading those clinical correlations (e.g. blue boxes) is really high yield those "patient presents with blah blah blah" questions.