More Numbers
More Numbers
(OP)
Check out this week’s Time (1 Mar 2004 issue date)
On page 42 of the Canadian edition there is a box on trends in cosmetic surgery. It’s in a US story so it should also be in the US edition but might be on a different page.
It shows two pie charts. These pie charts give the breakdowns in where the procedures were performed office, hospital or freestanding clinic for the years 2003 and 1997. The freestanding percentage was 23% both years but the office percentage increased from 46% to 52%.
The text says that the percentage change in procedures performed in an office was 13 % increase. This is only correct if one is referring to the percent change in the percent of procedures performed in an office, which is a meaningless number due to the increase in total procedures.
In 1997 the total number of procedures was 2.1 million, 46% of this translates into 970,000 office procedures. In 2003 the total number of procedures was 8.3 million, 52% of that translates into 4.32 million office procedures.
The correct percentage in office procedures was therefore ((4.32/0.97)-1)x100= 347% increase.
Even the major national and international publications get it wrong.
On page 42 of the Canadian edition there is a box on trends in cosmetic surgery. It’s in a US story so it should also be in the US edition but might be on a different page.
It shows two pie charts. These pie charts give the breakdowns in where the procedures were performed office, hospital or freestanding clinic for the years 2003 and 1997. The freestanding percentage was 23% both years but the office percentage increased from 46% to 52%.
The text says that the percentage change in procedures performed in an office was 13 % increase. This is only correct if one is referring to the percent change in the percent of procedures performed in an office, which is a meaningless number due to the increase in total procedures.
In 1997 the total number of procedures was 2.1 million, 46% of this translates into 970,000 office procedures. In 2003 the total number of procedures was 8.3 million, 52% of that translates into 4.32 million office procedures.
The correct percentage in office procedures was therefore ((4.32/0.97)-1)x100= 347% increase.
Even the major national and international publications get it wrong.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng
Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com





RE: More Numbers
"The change in procedures performed in an office as fraction of total 1997 surgeries was 13%".
If they provide the data, I personally give 'em some latitude to be brief in their summary.
If they don't provide the data, you never really know whether they're telling it right or not.
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: More Numbers
I'm obviously not alone in my distaste for mis-used statistics.
RE: More Numbers
I do agree that the mis-use of statistics is quite distasteful, and can be quite harmful, especially when it's used, not to discuss the data set and it's implications, but rather to incite others to take unwarranted action. If the previous author mis-stated the 13% increase claim for the purposes of, let's say enacting some medical legislation, then it is a harmful misuse, and not a misunderstanding. To me it's more a reflection of motive.
As we in the USA approach our Presidential election, we can expect both sides to grossly misuse statistics.
RE: More Numbers
There is some argument as to who actually originated this infamous quote. Earlies printing of such appears to be J. A. Baines using the phrase in J. of the Royal Statistical Society 59 (1895) 87. He quotes his friend and fellow statistician, M.P., later Lord, Courtney, in "recent" use.
RE: More Numbers
http://www.worldofquotes.com/topic/index.html
RE: More Numbers
Author: Lewis Carroll
RE: More Numbers
The film, "The madness of George III" was apparently re-named "The madness of King George" because the "III" would make audiences (I won't say which country they were alluding to) believe it was a second sequel and that they had missed the first two films.
Now I read that the new Aston Martin DB9 has been launched to replace the DB7. Where, asks the article, is the DB8? quietly aborted because it was felt that
Are numbers becoming a more universal problem?
Are numbers often used ambiguously?
Does it happen in engineering?
Well, yes, I think so.
How many of you encounter that confusion between SCFM and ACFM in gas flow? or are mystified by the diference between "standard" and "normal"? (n/N?ormal)
Many times times people quote viscosity without referencing the temperature. This can be a problem with fuels because the standards use 100degC as the reference yet the industry commonly describes fuels by their 50degC temperature.
So people quite often refer to a 380cSt fuel which, by the standards, is a 35cSt fuel. Here the distinction is clear enough as there is an order of magnitude difference, or is it?
So people economical with their words often leave of vital inforation but this shorthand is only inteligable to those in the know; for others, a tad confusing at times.
JMW
www.viscoanalyser.com
RE: More Numbers
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: More Numbers
And I was so sure my SR5 had 5 cylinders.
TTFN
RE: More Numbers
It says in big letters on the valve cover “20 valves”. After 10 years I am amazed that a lot of people have trouble figuring out that that means a 5-cylinder engine.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng
Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com
RE: More Numbers
Sorry to correct you, but my VW has 20 valves, but it is a five valve per cylinder four cylinder engine.
Cory
RE: More Numbers
Cheers
Greg Locock
RE: More Numbers
Speaking of Monarchs I did see "The madness of King George III" and was not confused in the least about whether it was the second sequel. I did enjoy the historic content and learned that inbreeding is a bad thing. I also knew such a banal subject would not warrant 2 sequels.
It is amazing how such rubes have become the world leader in technology and the only remaining world super power. I guess us renegade colonists are just to dang stupid to realize it was just dumb luck.
The above tirade is all in jest JMW. I'm just funnin' with Ya'll!
RE: More Numbers
The great advantage of being a multinational with an all-encompassing choice of ancestors is that I can poke fun at all my "nationalities". That is, except that in conversation, especially in pubs, it takes too long, after the joke, to explain that "some of my best friends are Americans/Irish/Scottish/red-necks/etc" beore being thunped; a forum is not as much fun (you have to bring your own drinks) but decidedly safer.
The problem is, as ever, that some people can't discriminate between "affectionate" and "derogatory" though much, like beauty, is in the eye or mind of the beholder and or recipient.
In this PC world (not IBM, the other) a lot of good jokes are going to waste.
JMW
www.viscoanalyser.com
RE: More Numbers
It is now proved beyond all reasonable doubt that smoking is one of the leading causes of statistics.
And another of anonymous origin:
If you just torture tha data long enough, they will confess.