Circulation, a major cardiology medical journal, just published an article on atrial fibrillation ablation, complete with extensive video - all available for free online. It's an informative piece, but I found myself wondering why this piece was "unlocked" and available to the public for free when the most of the rest of the journal is locked. In the video, the atrial fibrillation magically disappears - I'm not sure how. Was it by ablation? Or did a cardioversion occur that we didn't see? And where is the discussion of potential complications? Should they be mentioned? The viewer is left to wonder if we're watching a promotional video rather than a truly balanced perspective on the technology. Might industry have supported this publication? Or maybe it was the hospital system's marketing department?
It isn't that the article doesn't have value. I just wonder if a new form of critical scientific review or additional disclaimers are warranted when video supplements are added to journal articles now that print-media is nearly obsolete.