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.

Example input: 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
Example output: 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.
Example explanation: 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.
Q: Paragraph: The story does not describe the costs of uterine artery embolization or how they compare to costs of surgery. The cost of UAE is quite high and for some women may not be covered by insurance. The story provides adequate quantification of some of the most important things for consumers to know, such as the fact that after a year, there were no differences in the quality of life of the women assigned to uterine artery embolization compared to those assigned to surgery and that 13% of those who underwent UAEhad a repeat hospitalization, mostlyfor surgical intervention because of failure of UAE to achieve the desired results. The story could have provided more quantification of other pieces of information that women would want to know, such as length of hospital stay, time to return to work, or risk of serious adverse events. The story does mention some of the potential harms of uterine artery embolization, such as the need for repeat procedures for treatment of recurrent symptoms and the fact that there are questions aboutsafety of pregnancy after the procedure. The story should have also mentioned the potential for ovarian failure, causing infertility, infection, delayed complications and a small risk of emergency hysterectomy. The story adequately describes the design of the current study. The story accurately describes the prevalence and symptoms of uterine fibroids. The story only uses quotes from the original article and accompanying editorial. It doesn't appear that the authors were even interviewed. The story should have quoted other clinicians/researchers who were not related to the study who could have provided some perspective on what this new information means for clinical practice. The story does mention alternative options such as myomectomy (surgical removal of the fibroids), hysterectomy (surgical removal of the uterus) in addition to uterine artery embolization. The story could have mentioned other treatments such as watchful waiting, pain medications orbirth control pills. The story does not state whether uterine artery embolization (UAE) is available and if so, how widely. And availability is a real issue. It requires expertise in interventional vascular radiology and an interest in the female pelvic anatomy. Facilities offering the procedure would need strong links between gynecologists and radiologists to provide coordinated assessment and care. This is not explained in the piece. The story implies that uterine artery embolization is a new procedure. The story could have mentioned that the procedure has been performed for more than 10 years in Europe and the US, although it has been limited to mostly academic hospitals. There is no way to know if the story relied on a press release as the sole source of information, although it is noteworthy that the story only uses quotes lifted from the published study and from an accompanying editorial. It doesn't appear that these people were actually interviewed. Claim: Treating fibroids without surgery
A:
A growing body of evidence suggests that uterine artery embolization (UAE)is a viable alternative to surgery for symptomatic fibroids for women who don't desire future pregnancy. For many women, avoiding surgery isa tremendous relief. However, there are still unanswered questions about the safety and efficacy of UAE. This story reports on a randomized controlled trial published in this week's New England Journal of Medicine comparing UAE to surgery for symptomatic fibroids. This story does a good job of explaining the problem of fibroids,describing thetreaments comparedand why UAE is an important advancement. However, this story is limited by the lack of balance in its sources and leaving out important information on the costs and availability of the procedure. The story accurately describes the prevalence and symptoms of uterine fibroids. The story provides adequate quantification of some of the most important things for consumers to know, such as the fact that after a year, there were no differences in the quality of life of the women assigned to UAE compared to those assigned to surgery and that 13% of those who underwent UAEhad a repeat hospitalization, mostlyfor surgical intervention because of failure of UAE to achieve the desired results. The story could have provided more quantification of other pieces of information that women would want to know, such as length of hospital stay, time to return to work, or risk of serious adverse events. The story implies that UAE is a new procedure. The story could have mentioned that the procedure has been performed for more than 10 years in Europe and the US. The story does mention some of the potential harms of UAE, such as the need for repeat procedures for treatment of recurrent symptoms and the fact that there are questions aboutsafety of pregnancy after the procedure. The story should have also mentioned the potential for ovarian failure, causing infertility, infection, delayed complications and a small risk of emergency hysterectomy. However, the story does not state whether uterine artery embolization (UAE) is available and if so, how widely. And availability is a real issue. It requires expertise in interventional vascular radiology and an interest in the female pelvic anatomy. Facilities offering the procedure would need strong links between gynecologists and radiologists to provide coordinated assessment and care. This is not explained in the piece. The story also does not describe the costs of UAE and how they compare to costs of surgery. The cost of UAE is quite high and for some women may not be covered by insurance.