8 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Slightly below average textbook, January 27, 2010
Overall, there are a lot of mistakes in this textbook that our professors specifically pointed out. It was annoying to find so many mistakes because it undercuts your confidence in the book itself. Further the chapters were not always organized the same and each drug could have been broken down more clearly and succinctly. There are some strengths though, it had nice pictures and side effects were labeled for many of the big drugs using helpful diagrams. I don't feel like this book worked for me because I need material that I can trust more than helpful diagrams, but everyone is different though. If the diagrams really help you sink it all in then by all means enjoy!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Full of Errors, January 13, 2011
I was disappointed with the many errors in this text. During every section, our instructors have to send out a list of corrections in Lippincott's. Pain-in-the-butt. Katzung's Review isn't perfect, but is far superior to this book. -Doc In Training
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
7 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Buy Katzung instead., January 11, 2011
I have to disagree with the other reviewers- this book is ballsack. It's full of errors, the questions suck, and there are like 4 at the end of each chapter. There is very little room for inaccurate medical texts in my library. I have replaced this book with Katzung and Trevor's Review and you should too. It takes a minimal amount of competency to write/edit these review books- I hope whoever put this book together is treating their cocaine addiction w/ propranolol. Here are a few errors from chapter 1:
1. On page 18, under item number 2, it should read "excretion rate" not "excretion ratio".
2. The equation at the top of page 21 C=C0-e^(-kt) is wrong; here's why:
if dC/dt=-kC
then dC/C=-kdt
and 'dC/C='-kdt, integrating from C0 to C and 0 to t respectively,
we get lnC- lnC0=-kt or lnC=lnC0-kt
taking the exponential.... e^(lnC)=e^(lnC0-kt) == C=e^lnC0 * e^(-kt) <<< ------------ author confused this log rule?
simplifying leaves us: C=C0 * e^(-kt)
3. In the answer to question 1.6, there is an error: the calculation should be Vd = 100 mg/ 20 mcg/mL (not mg) = 100 mg/ 20 mg/L
Math errors are particularly insidious because the uninitiated (read: med students) generally fail to catch them. For example, clueless med student that I am, had I not been doing pharmacokinetics research, I would've never spotted #2.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No