So I'm starting to lose faith in FC. At my school, we only take NBME Exams-essentially our school pays for access to the NBMEs retired bank of questions. For each subject, our professors will pick out 60-80 questions per exam. From my experience being tested through Path (GI, Resp, Card, Basics, Heme,), Micro, Phys, and Pharm, I find much of the FC detail immensely irrelevant. For example, FC lists the 5 categorical types of Pulmonary HTN, something not broken down in FA and Pathoma... not even close to showing up on our exams. It becomes a waste of space in your mind and leads to confusion rather than clarity lol. I also feel FC does a poor job of breaking down systemic/clinical signs which are MUCH more high yield than some of these details. For example, its much more important to explain what Melena, Wheezing, Hypo/Hyperresonance etc are for limiting your answer choices and DX then some of these details, which FC tends to not do. They should include a card per each system explaining what a symptom means and potential causes of that symptom. IMO, FC also needs to start approaching diseases by how to tell them apart versus just explaining each one individually (Note- Still Write them as individual topics, but at the end of the topic, they should explain similar presenting diseases and unique ways to differentiate). Right now, they randomly list SX for individual diseases, sometimes bolding SX that aren't useful for telling the disease apart, while unbolding Sx that are. Honestly, I feel like it is just someone randomly going through different sources and thinking "Oh this seems cool, let me add it in" rather then spending resources to decipher what is yield and what is not. It also gets confusing because I start to think some SX are only for 1 disease while not for similar diseases because they choose to write in SX for one and not the other *EX: Primary Billiary cirrhosis vs. 1 Sclerosising Choleangitis, Many SX are similar and should be differentiated by Lab tests/Antibodies* Lastly, I'd like to mention that I think the pharm section is very poorly done. I do not think you would be able to pass NBME exams using only FCs base of knowledge. They need to do a better job of "line of progression" and they need to delineate drugs within a class a bit more, grouping in this case sometimes gives wrong information (Ex: Listing Side Effects for a Class of Drugs when really a specific SE is only for one of those drugs) . For example (for Line of Progression), under CV Drugs, an individual drug topic might say "Use for HTN", but on the exam your answer choices can have multiple drugs that could technically work, its up to you to know the line of progression, or which is better under under which circumstance which FC does not explain. They should do something like Ex: P. aeruginosa- 1st use A, if that doesn't work use B, if they are resistant use C, the following could also work but are not often used: D,E,F.
(Note: Sometimes they do break it down, sometimes they don't, its inconsistent).
It is worth noting that my NBME questions are retired and thus likely much older questions, but somehow I don't think newer questions are going to be as detailed as FC puts out. If FC wants to improve, I suggest they start looking into cutting down their material details for certain topics (Come on, is a single test question really going to have multiple answer choices for the individual processes that form Anterior vs Posterior vs. Anteroposterior Cleft Palates? Unlikely, they're probably just going to post a picture of a cleft palate and have one answer choice related to Palantine/Maxillary processes with the rest being completely wrong/related to other congenital problems.) They should also include a summary card for each system that breaks down potential dx by symptoms (EX: Pt has RUQ Abdominal pain-K lets think about Liver, Gallbladder. It radiates to the R. Shoulder? K lets think about Gallbladder and perforated Duodenal ulcer etc. Grouping diseases by SX and explaining good ways to differentiate them would be VERY useful!
