<p>I run a medical blog, where I research topics and write detailed articles on for my readers. My blog is quite big, with over 5,000 unique hits a day, and it also makes me money so it’s a little business as well.</p>
<p>Now, I plan on applying to medical school next year and I was wondering if I should add this into my application. Will it help in any way? Should I write it as an extracurricular?</p>
<p>My gut reaction is no, unless you have a doctoral level degree of some kind. You’re pitting your writing against the writing of adcom members, many of whom will be published authors in very well regarded medical journals in their respective fields. Comparisons inevitably will be made, and I can’t see them being in your favor.</p>
<p>Interesting, my gut reaction was yes, mention it because it shows your interest in medicine, it shows a passion, it shows ingenuity in that it is actually making money. If I were an adcom I would not be comparing UG medical writing to the pros, but would be looking at the entertainment factor</p>
<p>Most of my articles are about topics that are already well known. I just gather information on different topics and compile an article that people find useful. Its not like I’m making new medical discoveries, its sort of a hobby of mine, I research and learn new things and at the same time make money.</p>
<p>I think it is worth mentioning.</p>
<p>It likely won’t impact your chances too much. Most doctors will probably read “blog” and then roll their eyes. A few might give you the chance to explain your blog at an interview. Basically, anything done in person will be more highly regarded than something that’s just done over the internet. For example, organizing a journal club and meeting weekly to discuss the latest research articles is more impressive than starting an online forum to discuss health topics.</p>
<p>You can include it or omit it. I don’t think it’ll make much of a difference on your chances.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is worth mentioning if it is good - properly referenced, factually accurate, and free of speculation. 5000 hits a day and an actual profit make this a business.</p>
<p>But a lot of info out there is very contratictory. How do you know which ones to add to your list? There is no factually accurate info in that area. One MD suggest one thing, and another is saying it does not help at all or test not being reliable. How you can sort it out professional background?</p>
<p>Clinical recommendations from randomized, controlled studies published in peer reviewed journals are the best guidelines. Recommendations from retrospective are less useful and sometimes useless.</p>
<p>Recommendations from professionally published textbooks are usually accurate, but may be out of date.</p>
<p>Opinions from “experts” are only as good as the experts are.</p>
<p>In general, information from major universities and research centers is reliable.</p>
<p>Wiki entries, anecdotal reports, doctor and patient blogs vary greatly in quality and usefulness.</p>
<p>See [Evaluating</a> Internet information](<a href=“http://www.library.jhu.edu/researchhelp/general/evaluating/]Evaluating”>http://www.library.jhu.edu/researchhelp/general/evaluating/) at the Johns Hopkins Library site.</p>
<p>Google “accuracy of web information” for a long list of interesting articles.</p>