Part 1. Definition
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.
Part 2. Example
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
Answer: 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.
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.
Part 3. Exercise
Paragraph: The story doesn't address costs for any of the treatment options discussed. Is MBSR comparable to CBT? Does insurance cover either treatment option? The story tells readers what percentage of study participants who got MBSR treatment reported improvement in pain, as well as what percentage of MBSR participants "reported improvement in the activities they could do." It also offered the same numbers for participants who received CBT and for the control group, which received typical medical care for this condition. These detailsdeservea Satisfactory rating. But: The story notes: "The study did caution that 30 of the 103, or about one-third, of the participants in the meditation group reported an 'adverse event,' most often an increase in pain due to yoga." It's good to see that included. Since the story is effectively comparing MBSR to CBT and conventional treatment, it would also have been worth noting "adverse events" for those groups in the study. According to the study, 10 percent of the CBT group also experienced "adverse events," and no adverse events were mentioned for the control group. Defining "adverse events" would also have been good, since it's not clear whether they mean momentary pain or a debilitating flare-up of long-term pain. According to the study, the painfor both MBSR and CBT groupswas "mostly temporary" and no "serious" adverse events were reported. Those things are worth mentioning. (It's also worth finding out what "mostly" and "serious" mean.) The story describes the study in detail, explicitly stating the study size and the absolute percentages in each arm that had benefit. It also acknowledged the study was randomized. We'll count this as sufficient for Satisfactory, keeping in mind the following: As explained in the summary above, the story doesn't make clear MBSR and CBT were used in addition to conventional medical treatment, rather than instead of medical treatment. The story didn't mention that the study excluded participants with what the study authors term "a specific diagnosis (eg, spinal stenosis)." In other words, the study did not address treatments for back pain caused by issues like a herniated disc or rheumatoid arthritis. Many readers have these conditions, and should be informed thatthese study results may not be applicable to their situation. Lastly, we would have welcomed a discussion of the high rates of success within thecontrol group. Forty-four percent in that group experienced a gain in functionality, for example. That seems pretty good! What do the researchers have to say about that? No disease mongering here. However, we did want to point out that the story "fear mongers" in a sense, by stating back pain is "one reason why more and more people are addicted to painkillers." The story insinuates that these other treatment methodsespecially meditationcould help with that. And maybe they could. But the study itself says "No overall differences in treatment effects were observed forself-reported use of medications for back pain." So why the mentionof painkiller addiction? Conflicts of interest don't appear to be an issue here, and the story includesstatements froman accompanying editorial in JAMA, which was written by experts unaffiliated with the research. This squeaks by as Satisfactory, though it should be noted that most of this material was available via news releases (see below). The story is effectively all about comparing alternatives, thoughagainit should have made clear that MBSR and CBT were used in conjunction with conventional medical treatment, and it left out discussion of other well-known non-medication treatment methods, such as exercise. It's not clear from the story whether MBSR is widely available, is available in mainly metropolitan areas, or is a relatively new field that is still uncommon. The story does quote from a separate editorial in JAMA that says health care systems "should provide access to affordable mind-body therapies,"implying that it's not widely available. Is this the case, or can it be easily accessed? Given the constraints of a brief news story, the piece does a nice job of articulating the differences between MBSR and CBT. It wouldhave been even more helpful for the story to mention previous studies on the impact of MBSR and CBT on low back pain, to help us understand how novel this new study is. There is little in the story that is not found in the two news releases issued on this study. (Those releases can be found here and here.) Claim: Mindful meditation may be the answer to relieving chronic back pain, study suggests
Answer:
This story focuses on a JAMA studyinvestigating whethermindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) is as effective as cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) and standard treatment at helping patients reduce lower back pain. The story does a good job of quantifyingthe benefits and risks seen in the study. However, there were three things we wanted to call special attention to: Lower back pain is an extremely common problem around the world. For example, a 2012 paper reported that lower back pain was responsible for more than three percent of all emergency room visits in the United States. An earlier paper found that health care expenditures in the U.S. directly attributable to back pain came to around $26 billion. When we consider the number of people affected by back pain, and the related economic impact, it's clear that any research that offers insight into how to effectively treat lower back pain is worth covering.