Difference between revisions of "Pathology books"

Jump to navigation Jump to search
69 bytes added ,  02:15, 29 December 2014
tweak
(tweak)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Pathology books''' are numerous. Some are good... many are crap.  This article reviews some of 'em.   
[[Image:Icono_Normativa.png|thumb|right|150px|A book. (WC/Ex Bibliotheca Gymnasii Altonani)]]
'''Pathology books''' are numerous, and still found at almost every pathology conference. Some are good... many leave much to be desired.  This article reviews some of them.   


==Robbins and Cotran pathologic basis of disease==
==Robbins and Cotran pathologic basis of disease==
Line 33: Line 34:


===Cons===
===Cons===
*The abbreviations are annoying.
*The abbreviations take getting use to/may be annoying.


===Reference===
===Reference===
Line 44: Line 45:
===Cons===
===Cons===
*The style suggested, for grossing, is wordy.   
*The style suggested, for grossing, is wordy.   
*Checklists, [[IMHO]], would be better.
*Checklists might be better.


===Reference===
===Reference===
Line 71: Line 72:


==Pathology Recall==
==Pathology Recall==
*Recommended by J.H.
===Pros===
===Pros===
*Covers the very basics... one saw in medical school.
*Covers the very basics... one saw in medical school.
Line 78: Line 77:
*Really only covers the stuff from medical school.
*Really only covers the stuff from medical school.
*Written by non-pathology residents and reviewed by a staff pathologists.
*Written by non-pathology residents and reviewed by a staff pathologists.
==Pathology Secrets==
*Recommended by J.H.
*M.S. thinks it isn't a good investment.


==Anatomic pathology board review==
==Anatomic pathology board review==
48,830

edits

Navigation menu