Most Helpful Customer Reviews
14 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Good but not excellent, July 8, 2005
This review is from: Grant's Atlas of Anatomy (Paperback)
This is re: 10th edition.
Grant's atlas serves well to orient a student for performing disection. The drawings are very well suited to the actual condition of flesh after embalming. I found the text to be superior to other atlases (except Rohan) for understanding the spatial dimensions of a disection proceedure. Unfortunately, however, there are some major limitations to the Grant atlas. 1) Only a minority of possible structures are labeled on each drawing, ie, you may see CN 12 in the drawing, but it won't be labeled 2) Many of Netter's drawings are simplifications to make underlying patterns or details more understandable - this understanding of anatomy is lost in Grant's in preferrence for factual reporting. For most students, the intuition within Netter's drawings is far more valuable 3) Grant's atlas focuses on disection. Most students will never disect the dead again. An atlas like Netter focuses on surgical representations, which, of course, is more appropriate for long term understanding.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
19 of 21 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Underrated, but truly delivers. That's what we found., April 11, 2005
This review is from: Grant's Atlas of Anatomy (Paperback)
This is the review I posted regarding the Netter atlas. I cite here, because it compared the Netter atlas with Grant's. It reflects the view of somebody that really experimented on the dissecting table various atlases. In the end, our group ended up with Grant's. It really delivered for us. My review assumes you will have a thorough anatomy exam, including cadaver, x-rays, CT, and physical examination of the live human. It might be that you school will only require a written examination, in which case our experience might not be the same. However, I feel this atlas develops fundamental skills.
"Netter's genius shines in the CIBA books, not on this atlas. It lacks fundamental correlations with what today's student must acquaint themselves with: MRI, CT, x-rays, and not to forget physical examination.
I guess the rave is all about only knowing this atlas, and also because of older teachers only know this atlas. I am not saying this [Netter's] is a bad atlas at all. All I am saying is that there are other choices that integrate information in a more meaningful way for today's medical student.
Our anatomy dissection group had Netter, Sobbotta, Grant's, Yokoshi's, and McMinn's atlases. We found Netter and Sobbotta to have "pretty pictures". Yokoshi had cadaver sections only, but they were executed by anatomy experts. If you followed it, you would get in trouble and section something you shouldn't (we became so appreciative of the human body's simmetry because of that). Same with McMinn's (and we also found some dissections not very inteligible, I might add). Students that displayed avoidance behavior towards dissection, and were more of the "exam cram" types favored Netter (that might also have been because of a lack of curiosity regarding other atlases). But we were not so, we stayed until late in the dissection room, only leaving when the night shift guard *made* us leave.
The atlas that truly delivered a nice view of anatomical *relations* between parts, and had dissections we could follow on the table, and that contained clear correlations with clinical and imaging information (part of our anatomy exam involved not only cadaver but x-rays, CT, and clinical topography) was Grant's Atlas of Anatomy. That was what we discovered through trial and error. It costs a lot less than some other atlases, and it is underrated, but it delivers much more. But YMMV."
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The best dissection atlas out there., October 15, 2007
This review is from: Grant's Atlas of Anatomy (Paperback)
This review is from the perspective of a first year medical student in Gross Anatomy.[...]
Grant's Atlas shines when it is in the dissection room with you. The drawings are more realistic, and more often than not muscles are reflected out of view rather than being omitted completely (Netter). While this is indeed more realistic and allows you to see more muscle relationships, it slows down studying because of the more complicated mess you see before you. Therefore, it's best used in the lab when that complicated mess is EXACTLY what you are seeing. In all fairness, there are little schematic drawings that simplify important muscle relationships. It also comes with a CD with the images from the book allows you to turn off the labels and quiz yourself. There are also about 100 USMLE style anatomy questions.
Netter's atlas shines for at home study away from your cadaver. It is more high-yield than Grant's atlas and makes for easier and faster learning. Grant, because of its thoroughness and more realistic perspective, can be a little bit of a chore to get through when cramming for a test. Netter said himself that he tried to find the balance between simplification and realism, and I personally think he did an outstanding job. I can study any of his diagrams and quickly see the most important relationships between muscles, arteries, veins, nerves, and bones. Ultimately, I would learn more using Grant's Atlas, but Netter is best when you are pushed for time. One thing I didn't like at first was that, unlike Grant's Atlas, Netter's doesn't have any text or tables. Then I found out that they were all on www.netteranatomy.com, which a pretty nice website that in my opinion give Netter's Atlas more value.
So, in short, Grant's atlas and Netter's atlas are both excellent. Each can stand on its own, but they really do compliment each other a lot for being direct competitors; Grant's is the best while dissecting, and Netter's is best for studying for exams and the USMLE.
[...]
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
