You will be given a definition of a task first, then an example. Follow the example to solve a new instance of the task.
Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

Paragraph: "Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release.". Claim: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Solution: We really don't understand why only a handful of mainstream news organizations reported this story. (At least in what we found.) The most common emergency surgery in the world. Rushing to emergency surgery may not carry any benefit. Waiting a few hours may be safer and less expensive. Why is that not a story? We applaud USA Today for finding time and space and clearly it didn't need to free up much space to do a good job telling the story. The story explains that as many as 300,0 appendectomies are done each year in the US. That figure alone explains why this is an important study to report.
Why? The output is an analysis of the claim while considering the paragraph as a reference. The output highlights the key features presented in the paragraph and explains the claim accordingly.

New input: Paragraph: The report notes that combined sales of these drugs account for more than $10 billion annually. The article does not mention comparative costs for other ways of managing the medical conditions these drugs treat. The news article does not quantify the potential benefits of treatment with heartburn or antacid drugs. They are very effective in preventing acid-related disease. An additional sentence or two might help readers weigh their pros and cons. The article provides balanced information about the frequency and seriousness of one potential harm of taking antacidship fractures. Most other research has turned up relatively minor side effects (e.g. gastrointestinal discomfort, diarrhea), though a 2005 study suggested that these drugs might make people more susceptible to virulent clostridium difficile infections that produce dangerous watery diarrhea. Though the article ably employs a quote by Dr. Alan Buchman to explain the chief limitation of the study's designthat it cannot prove cause and effect, and that the patients simply may "have some other problem that increases the risk of fractures"the story could have stated more clearly the drawbacks inherent in a retrospective study of a large patient database. There are no obvious elements of disease mongering. Hip fracture is common and often devastating. As the article suggests, it is the final insult on the slope toward death for one in five people. It dispatches another one in five to nursing homes for the rest of their lives. However, the article provides information only on relative risk of hip fractures, not their absolute risk. The very large relative risks cited may overstate the absolute risk of these medicines, even if there is a true risk of fracture. The news article reports the funding source for the study, cites three sourcesthe study's author, an academic gastroenterologist, and a spokeswoman for the manufacturer of Prevacidand provides adequate information to judge their potential conflicts of interest. The article explains that heartburn drugs may cause hip fractures by blocking calcium absorption. It suggests two potential solutions either "simply to consume more calcium," or to take the drugs in lower doses. Unfortunately, it fails to note that there is conflicting research to support the calcium-blocking hypothesis or that there is little research to show that calcium consumption can offset the increased risk of fracture among people taking antacids. More importantly, the article could have offered three additional recommendations: (1) all patients may not need to take these medicines on a regular basis; (2) lifestyle and dietary changescutting back on caffeine, alcohol, cigarettes, and acidic foodscan also help; and (3) some patients taking one class of drugs known as proton pump inhibitors (e.g. Nexium, Prevacid, Prisolec) could safely switch over to another class known as histamine blockers (e.g. Zantac) that were associated with fewer hip fractures in this study. Histamine blockers have a very safe long-term record (20+ years). Most readers are likely to know about heartburn drugs or antacids that suppress the production of gastric acid. They are, as the LA Times says, "among the most widely used in the United States." Some of these medicines are also available over-the-counter without a prescription, potentially useful information omitted from the news article. The report states that the treatment is widely used and accurately implies that it is not new. No obvious use of text from a press release. Claim: Less acid, brittler hips? Some heartburn drugs may be behind an increase in fractures
Solution:
This is a compact (only 566 words), nicely reported story that places a potentially important development in its appropriate context. The researchers went to great lengths in their published study to weed out variables other than heartburn drugs that might explain the increase in hip fractures that they observed. Nevertheless, they acknowledge that their retrospective review of a large patient database is inherently incapable of proving cause and effect. The quote from Dr. Alan Buchman in the news story summarizes this chief drawback well: The patients, he notes, may "have some other problem that increases the risk of fractures." The study provides reasonable evidence to support the news article's recommendations that patients should only use the drugs if they need them, and even then take them only at their lowest beneficial dose. Whether "the solution is to simply consume more calcium" remains unknown, unfortunately. Additional advice on the benefits of lifestyle and dietary changes would have been welcome, and perhaps a note on the relatively lower fracture risk associated with the class known as histamine blockers. In the end, the take home point may be that patients and doctors should periodically question the need to take any medicine used over the long term, even ones thought to be very safe.