Rating: 
Summary: I use it every day in medical transcription
Review: I am a Medical Transcriptionist student, nearing the end of my course and I have already obtained a number of medical dictionaries and encyclopedias as aids. THIS is the one that is already dog-eared from constant use, by myself, and others in my class. I wouldn't want to be without it. It's easy to use, clear, and concise. I also appreciate its compact size.
Rating:
Summary: My MT Bible
Review: I have been a medical transcriptionist since 1973. That is when I first started using my first MEDICAL WORD BOOK, by Sloan. I just received the newest edition of this book. Having words categorized by different body systems makes it much easier and quicker to use. Also, I have found words in there that I could not find in other references, because I knew what system of the body it would be in. I have many other references at my fingertips and if I had to choose only one to be on my desktop, this would definitely be it!!
Rating:
Summary: My MT Bible
Review: I have been a medical transcriptionist since 1973. That is when I first started using my first MEDICAL WORD BOOK, by Sloan. I just received the newest edition of this book. Having words categorized by different body systems makes it much easier and quicker to use. Also, I have found words in there that I could not find in other references, because I knew what system of the body it would be in. I have many other references at my fingertips and if I had to choose only one to be on my desktop, this would definitely be it!!
Rating: 
Summary: Inadequate
Review: I have been a transcriptionist for three-plus years, and I have owned this book for all that time. I honestly cannot recall a single time this book has been helpful. It is a small volume, for a medical word book, being about the size of a thick popular paperback novel, which is wholly inadequate for the monstrously huge field of medical words. It is separated by specialty, and to give an example of how inadequate this book is, let's just compare the number of pages dedicated to a couple of specialties: For instance, this book gives about 70 pages to ophthalmology, while Stedman's ophthalmology book is 560 pages. The OB/GYN section is about 60 pages, while Stedman's OB/GYN book is over 600 pages. It's for good reason the sections are so small in this book. For instance, under "orbital" in the ophth section we find 10 entries (orbital apex, orbital cellulitis, etc.). Looking under "orbital" in the Stedman's ophth book we find about 120 entries (orbital abscess, orbital adipose tissue, orbital akinesia, etc.). The MT who hears a hurried eye doc state "orbital akinesia" will find zero help from Sloane. That, obviously, is just one of many such examples I could give. And, I'll point out, my page totals above for the Stedman's books do not include their multiple appendices, which are also very helpful; this book has no such feature by specialty. I learned quickly that I'd always do better to check my Stedman's specialty word book first, and consequently haven't had reason to use this because it is missing *so much* information. You get what you pay for. If you need to work independently as an MT, this cheapo approach won't help you much. If you can find any way to lay out a few hundred dollars for a set of Stedman's word books or CDs, you'll be way ahead of the game. I may throw this book into our next garage sale, as it just takes up office space for no good reason.
Rating:
Summary: Inadequate
Review: I have been a transcriptionist for three-plus years, and I have owned this book for all that time. I honestly cannot recall a single time this book has been helpful. It is a small volume, for a medical word book, being about the size of a thick popular paperback novel, which is wholly inadequate for the monstrously huge field of medical words. It is separated by specialty, and to give an example of how inadequate this book is, let's just compare the number of pages dedicated to a couple of specialties: For instance, this book gives about 70 pages to ophthalmology, while Stedman's ophthalmology book is 560 pages. The OB/GYN section is about 60 pages, while Stedman's OB/GYN book is over 600 pages. It's for good reason the sections are so small in this book. For instance, under "orbital" in the ophth section we find 10 entries (orbital apex, orbital cellulitis, etc.). Looking under "orbital" in the Stedman's ophth book we find about 120 entries (orbital abscess, orbital adipose tissue, orbital akinesia, etc.). The MT who hears a hurried eye doc state "orbital akinesia" will find zero help from Sloane. That, obviously, is just one of many such examples I could give. And, I'll point out, my page totals above for the Stedman's books do not include their multiple appendices, which are also very helpful; this book has no such feature by specialty. I learned quickly that I'd always do better to check my Stedman's specialty word book first, and consequently haven't had reason to use this because it is missing *so much* information. You get what you pay for. If you need to work independently as an MT, this cheapo approach won't help you much. If you can find any way to lay out a few hundred dollars for a set of Stedman's word books or CDs, you'll be way ahead of the game. I may throw this book into our next garage sale, as it just takes up office space for no good reason.
Rating:
Summary: Not one of my favorite references...
Review: I have been doing medical transcription out of my home for the past four years and have amassed quite a collection of books in that time. This book normally comes highly recommended by other MTs (just see the other reviews), but honestly I was not impressed with it. I would say at least 3 out of 4 times I go to look up a word in The Medical Word Book I cannot find it. As such, I have found myself referring to it much less often; sometimes I give it another chance but more often than not I am left frustrated and have to look elsewhere for my term.
Rating:
Summary: Not one of my favorite references...
Review: I have been doing medical transcription out of my home for the past four years and have amassed quite a collection of books in that time. This book normally comes highly recommended by other MTs (just see the other reviews), but honestly I was not impressed with it. I would say at least 3 out of 4 times I go to look up a word in The Medical Word Book I cannot find it. As such, I have found myself referring to it much less often; sometimes I give it another chance but more often than not I am left frustrated and have to look elsewhere for my term.
Rating: 
Summary: Good book for transcription
Review: I've been an MT for 20 years, the last 4 at home, and used the 3rd edition fairly frequently, so really looked forward to the 4th. However, for all its increased number of pages, it leaves a lot to be desired. Just yesterday when looking for a specific brace, checked "brace" in ORTHOPEDICS AND SPORTS MEDICINE where I was told to "see appliance, orthosis, prosthesis and splint". At appliance, I was told "see also prosthesis". Orthosis and splint actually do have lists of specific items -- but not the one I was looking for. That's just one example, but I have encountered several entries like it. I guess I'll just stick with my old, falling apart 3rd edition.
Rating: 
Summary: A BIG DISAPPOINTMENT
Review: I've been an MT for 20 years, the last 4 at home, and used the 3rd edition fairly frequently, so really looked forward to the 4th. However, for all its increased number of pages, it leaves a lot to be desired. Just yesterday when looking for a specific brace, checked "brace" in ORTHOPEDICS AND SPORTS MEDICINE where I was told to "see appliance, orthosis, prosthesis and splint". At appliance, I was told "see also prosthesis". Orthosis and splint actually do have lists of specific items -- but not the one I was looking for. That's just one example, but I have encountered several entries like it. I guess I'll just stick with my old, falling apart 3rd edition.
Rating:
Summary: The most-used reference book in my medical library!
Review: Long the bible of many MTs, Sloane's Medical Words suffers from the noble attempt at "doing it all." It attempts to compile words from every medical specialty, including drugs, labs, anatomy and abbreviations, arranged not alphabetically but by section, thus making it difficult to search for terms which might be under more than one section. For example, diabetes and related terms can be found under Pediatrics but not Internal Medicine, and whiplash is found under Immunology but not Orthopedics. It is nice to have normal lab values, tables of elements, weights and measures, and combining forms all in one place. But it is hard to see what place a section on drugs might have in a reference such as this. Even drug books updated every year are already out of date by the time they are in print. In addition, one often needs to see indications, dosages and method of supplying when looking up drugs, none of which is included here. Presenting a list of drug names without other accompanying information is at best unnecessary and at worst dangerous. A search through the General Medical section fails to turn up emphysema or hypertension; it turns up exogenous obesity but not central obesity. General Surgical Terms fails to turn up abdominoplasty or V-Y advancement flap; it turns up Dacron and Marlex grafts but not tunnel, bypass or even vein graft. The lab section fails to turn up troponin or psittacosis; it turns up anion, but not anion gap. A search through Abbreviations fails to turn up LOC (loss of consciousness) or CCE (clubbing, cyanosis or edema); RRR is shown to be "renin-release rate", but not "regular rate and rhythm". Hardly a scientific survey - but one can see how one would be searching through other, more comprehensive reference books in no time. And why soon one would be saving oneself the trouble and going right to those other books to begin with.
|
