292 of 308 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Dorland's: a big disappointment, October 3, 1999
As a medical textbook author, I felt a need to add Dorland's to my increasing collection of medical dictionaries, so I ordered a copy from Amazon.com. Now that I have used it for a couple of weeks, I can remember why I chose Stedman's back when my budget was more limited and I compared the two dictionaries with an eye to buying just one of them. I am repeatedly disappointed when I look up terms in Dorland's. Pronunciations are often lacking (e.g., for the cranial foramina and skeletal muscles), the illustrations are meager and inferior to Stedman's, and many terms are missing. Dorland's doesn't even define first-, second-, and third-degree burns, for example, and the levator labii superioris muscle and levator labii superioris alaeque nasi are completely missing from both the body of the dictionary and the appendix of muscle tables. Such omissions reflect either inexcusable carelessness or inexplicable editorial caprice. A professional writer or physician should have Dorland's on hand as a backup source. I find it useful for corroborating some facts and getting alternative meanings of words. But I still go to Stedman's as my first resort; it does a far better job. For a student or professional person with budget for just one good medical dictionary, I recommend Stedman's or the more economical but very good Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
61 of 61 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The best medical dictionary., August 23, 1998
By A Customer
Dorland's and Stedman's are the two premier medical dictionaries. Any physician or other person who requires frequent reference to medical definitions should probably own both (I do). Both books have occasional errors; each book has terms that the other lacks; and each book has some definitions that are superior to the those in the other. However, if you purchase only one, I recommend Dorland's. In my opinion, Dorland's has definitions for more terms, better definitions and fewer errors.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
61 of 62 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The 30th edition of Dorland's is a real delight., April 7, 2004
I'm not in a position to criticize anyone who prefers Mosby's or Stedman's dictionaries; however I have used all three and found the 30th ed. of Dorland's to be my personal favorite.
1. Anyone who uses books regularly knows the importance of a dictionary's binding and printing. Dorland's has a beautiful layout, easy-to-read font, and subtle and effective illustrations. The paper is top quality, and few books these days are so well bound. The book stays open at any page and when shut feels like a brick. The binding doesn't flex and the pages don't sag.
2. I am not a specialist, but I haven't found any word from a medical textbook that wasn't easy to locate and very well defined. The quality of the illustrations is really striking--particularly for anatomical terms. I find an excess of pictures and photographs distracting in a dictionary, and Dorland's are always well-chosen and relevant.
3. The CD-ROM/registration code is a nice plus. I can't comment on the PDA feature, but the access to the internet version of Dorland's is an incredible time saver if one happens to be working at the computer.
I love this dictionary. If I had time I'd read it cover to cover. The only downside is the size. There's definitely a place for Taber's or some other compact dictionary for travel, etc.
P.S.-- Thanks to Ken Saladin for his excellent critical review. The editors at Dorland's must have been listening too, since the 30th edition has all the terms he listed as missing (and hopefully others as well!)
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
