What is the ONE area you wish you studied more for boards?

[star23]

---

Members do not see this ad.

As I begin to wind down my studying for boards, I would like to take a survey of those of you who have been there before...what is the ONE or top 5 things you wished you had studied just a little bit harder before the big test?

 

[lipomas]

I would have thought molecular if you simply looked at the number of questions that related to it, but fortunately most of the molecular questions were fairly straightforward. But if your training program doesn't train you much in molecular, you definitely need to have at least a basic understanding.

I wish I studied more: Bacteriology, coag, breast path, peripheral blood smear findings.

 

[GeoLeoX]

heme images (peripheral smears, aspirates, special stains (non-immuno) were very well represented on my boards (2008), more so than I had hoped.

as lipomas mentioned molecular comes up a bit, but almost all the questions were related to interpreting an assay where the controls didn't work. the remainder of the questions seemed to images of assay results (electropherograms, gels, etc) that you had to read. If you hadn't seen them before it might be difficult, but if you had they were easy questions.

 

[2121115]

the remainder of the questions seemed to images of assay results (electropherograms, gels, etc) that you had to read. If you hadn't seen them before it might be difficult, but if you had they were easy questions.

How common is hemoglobin electrophoresis on the CP boards?

 

[GeoLeoX]

i don't recall a single question and if there was one, it must have been easy.

just to clarify in my above response i was referring to nucleic acid analysis - Ethidium bromide-stained agarose gels and capillary electropherograms from dye-terminator sequencing reactions rather than protein analysis (like SPEP, Hgb, etc). those assays are better classified as clinical chemistry, not molecular.

 

[yaah]

I think I had one hemoglobin question. I would have spent more time on micro too - both bacteria (non-AFB) and viruses. Probably would have reviewed more about pap smears too - a lot of questions about pap smears, particularly the bethesda system.

 

[green mantis]

I'd say HP in general because it's on both AP & CP. If you're not good at it, it affects your score in both sections.

There was more molecular than I thought on the exam, but most of it was pretty straightforward. Unfortunately, some of the questions were quite time consuming.


----- Antony

 

[Gorlum]

An advice I've heard was to read first chapters of Robbins. I cannot stand the book - it's too primitive. However, some takers advised not to bother with Robbins or any other review of general pathology. What would you say, guys?

 

[deleted314957]

An advice I've heard was to read first chapters of Robbins. I cannot stand the book - it's too primitive. However, some takers advised not to bother with Robbins or any other review of general pathology. What would you say, guys?

I find it interesting that the bit about Robbins was standard advice 25 years ago. It did not seem to be such valuable advice then.

 

[GeoLeoX]

An advice I've heard was to read first chapters of Robbins. I cannot stand the book - it's too primitive. However, some takers advised not to bother with Robbins or any other review of general pathology. What would you say, guys?

if you don't know what's in the first few chapters of robbins' by the time that you take the boards you have other things to worry about. it's a waste of time.

 

[2121115]

An advice I've heard was to read first chapters of Robbins. I cannot stand the book - it's too primitive. However, some takers advised not to bother with Robbins or any other review of general pathology. What would you say, guys?

I've been told that if you had a decent residency experience and know the compendium cold then you will be fine for CP.

 

[Gorlum]

I've been told that if you had a decent residency experience and know the compendium cold then you will be fine for CP.

Robbins was advised for AP🙂. I don't like the compendium either (too many mistakes nobody bothered to correct, outdated heme, typos) but I think I'm fine for both parts.

 

[Gorlum]

if you don't know what's in the first few chapters of robbins' by the time that you take the boards you have other things to worry about. it's a waste of time.

No, I don't cause even before the residency I couldn't go beyond introduction🙂. In case you are wondering, I had a year of obligatory pathology and a half a year of forensics in my medschool. Besides, our chairman hates the book and prohibited us touching it - the only advice I followed🙂. Ok, thanks!

 

[yaah]

An advice I've heard was to read first chapters of Robbins. I cannot stand the book - it's too primitive. However, some takers advised not to bother with Robbins or any other review of general pathology. What would you say, guys?

There is important stuff in there. I think most of the stuff the boards would test would show up in the figures/diagrams. Mostly genetic syndromes, immunodeficiency stuff. Robbins has some great info on that. I read a couple of the early chapters (immunodeficiency) but not entirely sure how much it helped. Looking at the images definitely helped though.

 

[lipomas]

Agree Robbins isn't the most important thing to study, but there is a lot of stuff in there that is not well covered elsewhere and shows up on the boards. Particularly genetic stuff. The cardiac chapter is also good, and the CNS chapter because my boards had a lot of brain abnormalities on it, mostly gross images of anatomic abnormalities.

I agree with the suggestion of just looking at the images and diagrams. That would have saved me some time, in retrospect!

 

[Gorlum]

but there is a lot of stuff in there that is not well covered elsewhere and shows up on the boards. Particularly genetic stuff. The cardiac chapter is also good, and the CNS chapter because my boards had a lot of brain abnormalities on it, mostly gross images of anatomic abnormalities.

In my opinion, genetic stuff is well covered in ASCP lectures and Osler notes. For images I prefer this web-site: http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/webpath.html#MENU
Thanks, guys! It's clear now that Robbins is quite useless🙂.

 

[yaah]

In my opinion, genetic stuff is well covered in ASCP lectures and Osler notes. For images I prefer this web-site: http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/webpath.html#MENU
Thanks, guys! It's clear now that Robbins is quite useless🙂.

Um, no. It is most definitely NOT useless. If you choose to get info somewhere else that's fine. But in my studying experience I got a lot out of Robbins and didn't visit webpath at all, or look at the AP Osler notes. For most resources this is true - there are always alternative sources of information. But just because there are doesn't mean individual ones are useless.

 

[Gorlum]

But just because there are doesn't mean individual ones are useless.

Fair enough. Let me rephrase it: I prefer sources other than Robbins and hope to get away with it🙂.

 

[GeoLeoX]

Thanks, guys! It's clear now that Robbins is quite useless🙂.

I hope you didn't draw that conclusion from my previous statement because that is not what I stated at all. I think that Robbins' is a very valuable text for pathology residents as well as medical students. I said that if you don't know what is in Robbins' by the time you are taking the boards (read - the END of your pathology residency) then you have things to worry about. Implicit in that statement is that you have read and re-read the book throughout your training.

 

[Gorlum]

I hope you didn't draw that conclusion from my previous statement because that is not what I stated at all. I think that Robbins' is a very valuable text for pathology residents as well as medical students. I said that if you don't know what is in Robbins' by the time you are taking the boards (read - the END of your pathology residency) then you have things to worry about. Implicit in that statement is that you have read and re-read the book throughout your training.

I got your idea - I'm not that dumb as I seem to be🙂. I answered you that I used other sources in medschool (I had very structured pathology and forensic courses) AND in residency and was merely curious about a value of Robbins.

 

[2121115]

I have heard that forensics is emphasized on the RISE but not as much on the AP boards. Is this the experience of those of you that have taken the test?

 

[BierstiefelAndy]

I have heard that forensics is emphasized on the RISE but not as much on the AP boards. Is this the experience of those of you that have taken the test?

I only had one question on the AP boards that related to forensics.

The board exam does emphasize cytopathology quite a bit...

 

[GeoLeoX]

I have heard that forensics is emphasized on the RISE but not as much on the AP boards. Is this the experience of those of you that have taken the test?

yep. not much forensics. i think that i had a post-mortem chemistry question and maybe one or two other tox questions, but nowhere near the percentage of forensic questions that are on the RISE.

 

[lipomas]

yep. not much forensics. i think that i had a post-mortem chemistry question and maybe one or two other tox questions, but nowhere near the percentage of forensic questions that are on the RISE.

Sounds about right from what I remember also. Although quite a few of the surg path-related gross photos were also applicable to forensics. Particularly the gross neuropath images.