This doesn't tell you how they were used, or why they failed.
I'd suggest normalizing the failure percentage so you get a more concise picture of relative failures.
The 14.6% Kingston failure rate is misleading when compared to the 13.6% failure rate of the OCZ. It makes it seem like Kingston is a worse drive, but only because of the limited number of items reported. The data also makes Samsung seem like the #1 winner, because they've had zero failures. But only 8 drives in the study. A single failure will bump Samsung from the best, to one of the worst.