Overview
- Editors:
-
-
Narasimhan Ranganathan
-
University of Toronto and St. Joseph’s Health Centre, Toronto, Canada
-
Vahe Sivaciyan
-
University of Toronto and St. Joseph’s Health Centre, Toronto, Canada
-
Franklin B. Saksena
-
Northwestern University School of Medicine, Chicago, USA
Access this book
Other ways to access
Table of contents (11 chapters)
-
Front Matter
Pages i-xvii
-
- Narasimhan Ranganathan, Vahe Sivaciyan, Franklin B. Saksena
Pages 1-14
-
- Narasimhan Ranganathan, Vahe Sivaciyan, Franklin B. Saksena
Pages 15-48
-
- Narasimhan Ranganathan, Vahe Sivaciyan, Franklin B. Saksena
Pages 49-66
-
- Narasimhan Ranganathan, Vahe Sivaciyan, Franklin B. Saksena
Pages 67-111
-
- Narasimhan Ranganathan, Vahe Sivaciyan, Franklin B. Saksena
Pages 113-139
-
- Narasimhan Ranganathan, Vahe Sivaciyan, Franklin B. Saksena
Pages 141-210
-
- Narasimhan Ranganathan, Vahe Sivaciyan, Franklin B. Saksena
Pages 211-273
-
- Narasimhan Ranganathan, Vahe Sivaciyan, Franklin B. Saksena
Pages 275-307
-
- Narasimhan Ranganathan, Vahe Sivaciyan, Franklin B. Saksena
Pages 309-319
-
- Narasimhan Ranganathan, Vahe Sivaciyan, Franklin B. Saksena
Pages 321-359
-
- Narasimhan Ranganathan, Vahe Sivaciyan, Franklin B. Saksena
Pages 361-395
-
Back Matter
Pages 397-411
About this book
It has been our experience that instruction in physical examination of the heart in medical schools has been deteriorating since the advent of such modern diagnostic tools as two-dimensional echocardiography and nuclear imaging. At best, the teaching has been sketchy and too superficial for the student to appreciate the pathophysiological correlates. Both invasive and the noninvasive modern technologies have contributed substantially to our knowledge and understanding of cardiac physical signs and their pathophysiological correlates. However, both students and teachers alike appear to be mesmerized by technological advances to the neglect of the age-old art, as well as the substantial body of science, of cardiac physical examination. It is also sad to see reputed journals give low priority to articles related to the clinical examination. Our experience is substantiated by a nationwide survey of internal medicine and cardiology training programs, which concluded that the teaching and practice of cardiac auscultation received low emphasis, and perhaps other bedside diagnostic skills as well (1). The state of the problem is well reflected in the concerns expressed in previous publications (2–4), including the 2001 editorial in the American Journal of Medicine (Vol. 110, pp. 233–235), entitled “Cardiac auscultation and teaching rounds: how can cardiac auscultation be resuscitated?”, as well as in the rebuttal, “Selections from current literature. Horton hears a Who but no murmurs—does it matter?” (5).
