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: While the story notes that the U.S. price of the Obalon intragastric balloon has yet to be announced, the story could have reported that the device and related care typically cost $2,500 to $4,000 in Europe, where it has been available for almost three years. Costs are also likely markedly higher than working with a behavioral team. The story quantified benefits by stating: Obese patients who swallowed balloon capsules that helped them eat less lost an average of 15 pounds, roughly two times more weight than patients who just dieted and exercised, researchers report. and: People treated with the balloons lost an average of 7 percent of their weight, compared to less than 4 percent for those who received the sham device, the researchers found. Six months after the balloons were removed, nearly 90 percent maintained the weight loss they achieved during treatment, Pryor said. In addition to reporting the weight loss results announced by researchers and that, unlike other balloons, this device doesn't require patients to be sedated during placement, the story adds important context by including comments from independent sources who are skeptical that many patients will maintain their lower weight long after the device is removed. The story mentions these harms: As for side effects, one patient had a bleeding stomach ulcer while taking high doses of pain pills after a knee replacement. Most patients (91 percent) suffered from stomach cramps and nausea, which nearly 100 percent said were mild or moderate. The story would have been stronger if it had warned readers that a study that puts a device in only a couple of hundred people may miss problems that could appear after the device is placed in hundreds of thousands or even millions of patients. The documentation that the manufacturer will give patients lists several serious, even life-threatening, potential side effects, including intestinal and airway blockages. These potential risks should have been noted. The story reports the key features of the trial. It also notes that, "Research presented at meetings is considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal." The story would have been stronger if it clearly reported that the trial does not provide any evidence about whether the Obalon device is any better or worse than other options, because it did not compare it to similar balloons or to other weight loss interventions, other than the lifestyle counseling offered to all study participants. The researcher quoted in the story notes that this device could be an option for people who are leery of surgery. Independent sources quoted in the story predict a small role for such devices. One of the strongest aspects of this story is the ample use of independent sources to provide context and point out limitations of the device. However, this criterion demands that sponsors of research be identified, and this story does not tell readers that the trial was sponsored by Obalon Therapeutics. The story includes discussion of weight loss surgery and lifestyle interventions. It includes a quote noting that the Obalon device does not require patients to be sedated during insertion, which implies there are other similar balloon devices, though the story would have been better if it specifically noted that there are already two very similar devices available in the U.S. as well as other balloon devices that are for sale in other countries. It also could have pointed out that these results don't appear more effective than an intensivebehavioral program. The story reports that the Obalon balloon was approved by the FDA in September and will be available in January 2017. As noted above, the story reports that the Obalon device does not require patients to be sedated during insertion, which appears to be the main difference between this device and other similar balloons. It would have been better if it had more clearly informed readers that there are other intragastric balloon devices already on the market. The story notes that these study results also werepresented back in May. The story includes several quotes from independent sources, as well as important details that were not included in a news release from the organizers of the the medical meeting where these results were presented. (We also reviewed the news release.) Claim: Balloon-in-a-pill helped obese patients lose weight
A:
Credit: FDA safety materials on Obalon This story about a balloon swallowed by people with obesityto help them diet and lose weight is more informative than the associated conference news release we also reviewed. The overall tone of the story balances the positive spin from a researcher with skeptical comments from independent sources. It alerts readers that this sort of medical conference presentation does not go through the peer review process that major journals use. However, the story should have noted that the research was sponsored by the company that makes the device. It could have done a better job pointing out that the main difference between this device and other intragastric balloons already on the market is that this one doesn't require patients to be sedated during placement. The story also didn't point out that this type of device could cause life-threatening complications, and that the fact none were reported in this trial could be because fewer than 200 participants received the balloons. Patients want help comparing treatment options. Rather than highlighting results of a trial that merely compared this new weight loss balloon to a placebo, this story could have made more clear that there is no evidence yet that this device is any better or worse than similar products already on the market. It also could have helped readers by explaining that these results need tobe weighed against intensive behavioral weight loss programs (like the LookAHEAD trial, where one-year outcomes were better than balloon).