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: 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 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.
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.

Problem: Paragraph: "A comment about the overall cost of endoscopic sinus surgery, as well as insurance coverage and likely out-of-pocket expenses for patients, would have been appropriate in this story. In addition, the costs associated with the equipment and upkeep are also important considerations. However, the story didn't mention costs. This story focuses almost exclusively on the experience of one patient, a practice we generally think should be avoided. In this case, however, the patient in question was a health columnistwith the Boston Globe who brings a well-informed and appropriately skeptical perspective to the story. Whereas many storiesseek out patients who embody the best possible outcome for a new technology or procedure, thispatient describes an incremental benefit that was ""disappointing"" in size butin the end, still worth the trouble. Instead of getting 5 or more sinus infections per year, she now gets 3 or 4 infections that are not as badasbefore. In addition, the story emphasizes that surgery is ""rarely a cure"" and should be viewedas a ""last resort"" for most patients with sinus problems. We wishmorestorieswere this measured in their assessment of medicalbenefits. The story refers off-handedly to the possibility of""poking through to the brain or into the orbit of an eye,"" but it fails to explain that these events are very rare but real risks of the surgery. While extremely unlikely, it's possible for surgeons to accidentallydamagethe optic nerve, resulting in blindness, or to puncture the base of the skull, resulting in cerebrospinal fluid leakage. Other less serious,but more common complications are also possible. The story didn't mentionany of them. While we appreciated this story'scarefully calibrated tone and conspicuous lack of hype, we felt its discussion of the evidence was inadequate. The story quotes a surgeonwho says thatendoscopic surgery improves quality of life for patients""probably in over 90 percent of the cases."" But we're not given enough information to determine how this estimate was formulated orif it is representative oftypical patient outcomes. The surgeon might be talking about his own personal experience treating patients, which could be much better than average if he's an experienced surgeon working at a top-tier institution. Adding to our concerns, there is at least some published evidencesuggesting that endoscopic sinus surgeryis lesseffective than thisstory indicates. For example,asystematic review of randomized controlled trials couldn't find evidence that the procedure was more effective than medical therapy. Granted, this review included only 3 studies and could have involvedslightly different procedures than the one discussed in this story. But if there is more persuasive evidence to substantiate theprocedure's benefits,the story should havereferred to it directly instead ofpassing alongthe surgeon's second-hand estimates. There was no disease-mongering in this story. The story makes it clear that the surgery being described is a last-ditch approach for people with intractable problems. The story reliesheavily on the perspective of Judy Foreman, the health columnist and patient, and her surgeon,Ralph Metson, neither of whom have any conflicts of interest that we could identify. While it would have been nice to hear from an expert who wasn't involved in this particular case,the story does enough to satisfy the criterion. The story's sidebargives detailed descriptions of alternatives to surgery, including nasal irrigation and corticosteroid nasal sprays. The story states that about300,000 people a yearundergo sinus surgery, making it one of the most commonly performedprocedures in the U.S. However, it does not provide statistics on the number or percentage of those procedures that are performed endoscopically and the type of hospital setting in which they are done. Enodoscopic surgery with CT guidance as described in the story may be out of the reach of smaller community based practitioners. We'll call this satisfactory, but some additional detailwould have been appropriate. The story didn't attempt to oversell the novelty of this procedure. It is clear that this story didn't rely on a news release." Claim: Surgery For Sinus Misery: Better, But Still No Cure
Solution: "While we typically wouldn't advise reporters to focus exclusively on a single patient's experience, as this story aboutendoscopic surgery for treating sinus infectionsdid, the resulthere is a winner thanks tothe patient'sfamiliarity with the subject and unusually dispassionate perspective. She is the relatively rarepatient ina healthstory who acknowledges being disappointed with the outcome of a new treatment. Notable strengths of the story include its measured tone, its extensive discussion of nonsurgical alternatives,and its emphasis on theincremental benefits experienced by most patients (e.g. surgery is ""rarely a cure""). The story could have provided a bit more information about the different types of sinus problems people suffer from (e.g. sinusitis with and without polyps, etc)and what kinds of studiessupportendoscopicsurgery for chronic sinus infections. It also failed to provide enough detail regarding the costs and harms of the treatment. Chronic sinusitis is a common problem that has a significant impact on quality of life. Chronic sinus infections can be painful, result in significant medical expenditures,and lead tolost productivity due to work absences. Although endoscopic sinus surgery has some advantages over older, more invasive techniques that caused scarring and requiredlonger recovery periods, it is important for patients to have realistic expectations about the benefits of surgery and whether they are worth the risks. As this story makes clear, the benefits of surgery remain marginal enough that they are worthwhile onlyfor the most severe cases."