For geriatric patients requiring hospitalization, being able to walk without assistance (known as ambulation) is important for recovery. A team of medical researchers have developed a new ambulation program intended to increase the chances that geriatric patients achieve ambulation before being discharged from the hospital. The researchers conduct an initial test of the program at two hospitals. At each location, some patients are randomly selected to participate in the program, while the remaining patients do not participate in the program. They are hoping for a successful test, so that they can apply for further research funding to administer the program at more hospitals.

The researchers obtain the following data about the initial test of their program:

	Participate in program?
Achieve ambulation before discharge?	No	Yes
No (# of patients)	5,950	9,005
Yes (# of patients)	5,050	1,095
Total (# of patients)	11,000	10,100

The researchers are extremely discouraged, as these initial results suggest the program doesnt work. If anything, it appears the program is actually making it less likely that a patient achieves ambulation before discharge.

To better understand the results, the researchers take a closer look at the data and observe the following:

	Hospital A		Hospital B
	Participate in program?		Participate in program?
Achieve ambulation before discharge?	No	Yes	No	Yes
No (# of patients)	950	9,000	5,000	5
Yes (# of patients)	50	1,000	5,000	95
Total (# of patients)	1,000	10,000	10,000	100

The researchers are puzzled now it appears the program does improve the chances of achieving ambulation before discharge.

Question: Why are the researchers coming to different interpretations based on how they analyze the data?