What is your approach for blatantly conflicting sources?

[dbeast]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I've found a couple discrepancies between sources (I'm sure you have too), so what is your approach? Is the current edition of FA the final verdict on what the examiners will test?

 

[Myxedema]

Classic textbooks in a given field, like Robbins Pathologic Basis of Disease or Katzung Basic & Clinical Pharmacology

 

[JShephard]

I go with the textbook.

 

[dbeast]

Devil's advocate, but I've heard that textbooks are often several years behind the current literature. I've even heard Goljan say this in his lectures. What would you do in that situation?

 

[MrBeauregard]

Devil's advocate, but I've heard that textbooks are often several years behind the current literature. I've even heard Goljan say this in his lectures. What would you do in that situation?

Well in that case you'd be right on target or possibly a little ahead of boards, which are generally ~5 years behind.

If you've got conflicting information from a few sources, go find a primary resource (i.e. textbook) specifically devoted to that discipline/system/topic and go to town. Never use FA as the final verdict for anything; that "book" doesn't even have a functional index.