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: The story notes the cost of specific VR headsets (from $599 to $799) and says that users would also need to have a computer (costing approximately $999) to run the relevant software. Presumably, the games or other content for the VR systems would also cost money, which the story doesn't address. The story also does not address whether any of these costs would be covered by insurance or government programs (at this point, probably not). Benefits aren't quantified. The story mentions that, in some studies, "patients reported less discomfort." The story also notes that one of these studies found that patients "actually experienced less pain." However, it's not clear how much less discomfort and pain. A little bit? A lot? Instead, the story relies heavily on anecdote; for example, citing two patients who found VR useful in addressing their pain. On a side note, the story also cites "proponents of virtual reality" as saying that VR "can be an effective treatment" for Alzheimer's disease, arachnophobia and depression then doesn't expand on this or even mention any of those conditions again. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary support. Repeating claims fromunnamed proponentsabout conditions that aren't the subject of the story, and then not subjecting those claims to any critical analysis, does a disservice to readers. The story doesn't address potential harms. The types of consumer-focused VR technology being discussed in this article are relatively new, and the field is undergoing rapid growth. As such, it can be difficult to determine what harms associated with VR use, much less what the extent of those harms might be. However, that doesn't mean that nothing is known about potential risks associated with VR. One VR technology provider offers an overview of potential risks associated with its headset, and those risks range from dizziness and seizure for adults and children, to the potential for developmental problems related to balance, hand-eye coordination and multi-tasking in children. We don't expect stories to list all of the potential harms associated with any given intervention, but we do expect there to be at least some acknowledgment that risks exist. The story refers to at least two completed studies, but tells readers virtually nothing about them. Have they been published or presented at conferences? How many patients participated? Did they use control groups? Not only does the story tell us very little about the studies, it doesn't even give readers enough information to look the studies up themselves if they'd like more information (assuming the studies are even publicly available). Since the story is wide ranging in its definition of "pain" giving the reader additional resources would have been very useful. No disease mongering here. The story quotes multiple sources, and clearly identifies whether a source was associated with related research or (in one case) had financial ties to the VR industry. The story mentions a variety of other pain treatment options. The story would have been stronger if it had discussed if anycomparative studies have been done. For example, it refers to pharmaceuticals, but primarily in order to point out that drug use can lead to drug tolerance and be addictive. Similarly, the story mentions that "hypnosis, yoga, and meditation decrease your perception of pain" but only in a context that indicates VR may use a similar mechanism to also reduce pain. Could VR work as well as these treatment options? Could it work better? Could it be used in conjunction with other pain treatment approaches? Those are questions the story doesn't address. Even acknowledging that there is uncertainty in this area is useful to readers curious about this intervention. The story discusses the availability of various VR technologies, but more importantly the story also stresses that much more research needs to be done on VR's utility as a means of effectively treating pain. For example, the story says: "VR's effectiveness still has to be proven, particularly when trying to combat chronic pain"; and "VR has a lot of promise, but it's too early for it to be the standard of care"; and "There's a lot more research needed before VR is going to be widely accepted as a pain relief method." The story is, in essence, focused primarily on the novelty of using VR to treat pain how it might work, why it may become increasingly popular as VR prices drop, and how much work still remains to be done. As a result, we'll give it a Satisfactory rating. However, there are some things that could have been much more clear. For example, one of the researchers who is discussed in the story Hunter Hoffman has been publishing articles on VR's use to address pain since at least 2000. And a search of Google Scholar turns up more than a dozen studies on the subject, including a review article that was published in 2009. In short, while much work certainly does need to be done, there's more work out there than the story might lead readers to believe. The story would have been stronger if it had given readers some inkling of what researchers have already learned, based on the available literature. The story does not appear to be based on a news release. Claim: Hospitals Try Giving Patients a Dose of VR
Solution: The story focuses on the potential use of virtual reality (VR) headsets as clinical tools for helping patients deal with pain by distracting them. The impetus for the story appears to be the fact that the field of VR technology is experiencing rapid growth, which is making VR equipment less expensive. While the story makes clear that a lot of research needs to be done on VR as a tool for addressing pain, it does mention multiple studies that have already been completed but it doesn't offer much information about what those studies found. It also could have shown more caution about the claims made. For example, the story cites unnamed "proponents of virtual reality" as saying that VR "can be an effective treatment" for Alzheimer's disease, arachnophobia and depression, but that's left unexplained. It also said "the price of a headsetand software is tiny compared to the expense of keeping a patient in the hospital for an extra day." However, there's no indication that use of a VR headset will reduce extra hospital stays, so we're not sure why those two things are being compared without at least some explanation that this is a purely hypothetical economic side-benefit. According to the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, more than 25 million U.S. adults experience chronic, or daily, pain. And "nearly 40 million adults (17.6 percent) experience severe levels of pain." Those are big numbers, and pain is a big problem. While there are quite a few treatments available, given the scope of the problem, any new advance in pain management is certainly newsworthy.