Electrical Testing Equipment
Twenty years of CPSC NEISS emergency-room records for this consumer product category, combined with demographic breakdowns, multi-year injury trends, and matching recall notices.
Home Communication & Entertainment · CPSC Code 815
Down 34% over 5 years
The verdict
Electrical Testing Equipment carry a danger score of 23/100 (low risk), driven by roughly 78 ER-treated injuries a year that are declining by about 34% over the last five years.
- 23/100
- danger score (low risk)
- 78
- ER visits per year (avg)
- 6.3%
- end in hospital admission
- 45-54
- most-injured age group
Every figure is rendered from the CPSC NEISS record for product code 815 - last data year 2021.
PlainSafety danger score
How this 23/100 score is built
The score is computed from four CPSC-derived factors for electrical testing equipment - no opinion, no editorializing:
- Injury volume78 ER visits/yr
- Severity (hospitalization rate)6.3%
- Fatality rate0.00%
- 5-year trend-34%
See the full methodology for the exact weighting of each factor.
What the CPSC Data Shows
Electrical Testing Equipment (CPSC product code 815, in the Home Communication & Entertainment category) generate an estimated 78 emergency-room visits every year in the United States, adding up to roughly 621 ER-treated injuries across the 17-year span from 2005 to 2021. PlainSafety derives a danger score of 23/100 for this category (low risk), combining raw injury volume, demographic reach, severity of outcome, and multi-year trend. The five-year trajectory shows that injury counts are declining by about 34% over the last five years, with the busiest year on record being 2021 (147 estimated ER visits) and the quietest 2019 (16 estimated visits).
The single most common ER diagnosis for electrical testing equipment is electric shock to the all parts body, accounting for approximately 156 visits across the 20-year NEISS window, followed by puncture to the finger (81 cases). The 45-54 age group absorbs the largest share of injuries, about 237 cases over the NEISS window, and males appear slightly more often than the opposite sex in that cohort. Severity outcomes from the NEISS disposition field show that 6.3% of ER visits involving this product end in hospital admission or transfer.
Beyond the hospital-sampled NEISS projections, this page also aggregates 30 consumer incident reports filed directly on SaferProducts.gov, plus 12 anonymized ER narratives - together forming a layered picture of how electrical testing equipment fail in real households. Every figure on this page comes from CPSC-published data: NEISS projects national estimates from a probability sample of about 100 U.S. hospital emergency departments, while SaferProducts.gov collects voluntary reports from consumers, manufacturers, and clinicians. The danger score, trend indicators, and demographic breakdowns update automatically when CPSC releases a new yearly NEISS file, which is why this page is dated 2021-12-31. For regulatory context, consult CPSC recall notices and the SaferProducts.gov public database linked below.
Annual Injury Estimates (2005–2021)
Source: CPSC NEISS national estimates CPSC NEISS national estimates Injuries represent ER-treated cases only
Who Gets Injured?
| Age Group | Male | Female | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0-4 | 69 | 0 | |
| 5-14 | 16 | 0 | |
| 15-24 | 21 | 0 | |
| 25-34 | 81 | 55 | |
| 35-44 | 0 | 57 | |
| 45-54 | 221 | 16 | |
| 65-74 | 86 | 0 |
Most Common Injuries
| Body Part | Diagnosis | Est. Injuries |
|---|---|---|
| All Parts Body | Electric Shock | |
| Finger | Puncture | |
| Foot | Other | |
| Eyeball | Other | |
| Face | Hematoma | |
| Eyeball | Laceration | |
| Knee | Other | |
| Eyeball | Contusions, Abr. | |
| Face | Burns, Thermal | |
| Upper Arm | Fracture | |
| Wrist | Strain, Sprain |
Severity Breakdown
ER Visit Narratives
Real anonymized emergency room reports from the CPSC NEISS database.
3YOM WAS OUTSIDE PLAYING WHEN HE JUMPED OFF A SMART METER AND HIT HIS FOREHEAD. DX HEMATOMA OF FOREHEAD@
52YOF WITH COMPLAINT OF MECHANICAL FALL AT 4PM. PATIENT REPORTS THAT SHE WAS WALKING AND TRIPPED OVER A BOX THAT HAD A METAL WINCH ON TOP OF IT. PATIENT REPORTS THAT SHE FELL FOWARD AND INJURED HER LEFT, UPPER ARM. SMALL ABRASION TO THE RIGHT THENAR EMINENCE NOTED ON EXAM. DX: GROUND LEVEL FALL AND LEFT HUMERUS FRACTURE
15YOM AT VOCATIONAL TECH SCHOOL LEARNING ELECTRICIAN TRADE, CHECKED VOLTAGE ON PROJECT WHEN A FLARE ARC OCCURED STRIKING HIM AT THE BASE OF LT HAND, NOT WEARING GLOVES DX ELECTRIC INJURY
67YOM HAD AN ELECTRICAL METER BLOW UP IN HIS FACE, DX: BURN TO FACE
26YO F C/O LEFT KNEE PAIN X 6 DAYS KNEE PAIN STARTD AFTER PT'S ELECTRICSHOCK THERAPY (ECT) L KNEE BRIEFLY DISLOCATED DX: LEFT KNEE PAIN
^53YOM STS WAS WORKING ON THE CAR USING BATTERY TESTER, WIRE ON TESTER POPPED UP HIT PTS R EYE 20 MIN PTA DX LAC R CONJUCTIVA,EYE TRAUMA,
28 YOM SUSTAINED A PUNCTURE WOUND TO HIS L THUMB AFTER STABBING HIMSELFWITH AN ELECTRICAL VOLTAGE TESTER
DX WRIST SPRAIN 23YOM PATIENT C/O RT WRIST PN BEGAN SLOWLY WHILE WORKING ON ELECTRICAL TESTING EQUIPMENT PN INCREASES WITH LIFTING
68YMC USING AN ELECTRICAL CONDUCTION TESTING METER IT FELL AND SHARPPOINT HIT EYE/EYE TRAUMA
JOINT PAIN, THINKS MAY HAVE TETANUS FROM ADCCIDENTLY POKING LEG WITH TEST LIGHT 3 MO. AGO. DX; ARTHRITIS FEET.
RT CORNEAL AB-@ HOME-PICKED UP AN ELECTRIC TESTER-HIT EYE
SHOCKED WHILE HOLDING AN ELECTRIC METER WHEN IT EXPLODED IN HIS HAND
Consumer Incident Reports
Reports filed by consumers on SaferProducts.gov.
The defective product is a "Craftsman" Autoranging Multimeter Model 82175 S/N 07030045011 made for Sears by Extech. A similar meter failed causing severe burns to its user (S/N 20061293403). I am a registered professional engineer who is required to report public hazards. I am currently investigating the above incident in my capacity as a forensic electrical engineer. It is well known that users often apply these meters at the wrong settings and they are designed to protect the user with internal fuses and other techniques. The exemplar, purchased more than a year after the incident meter, contains a soldering defect that shorts out the protective fuse, eliminating its protection. This type of soldering defect would readily explain why the plaintiff's meter caused an arc flash and he received burns. The meter's circuit board is partially "wave soldered" and partially manually soldered. The exemplar meter that i have shows that the manual connections were made by someone not fully trained in soldering, and it is likely that he was instructed to make the connection in the way that shorts out the fuse. Although the meters contain a sticker that claims "QUALITY CONTROL - PASSED," this safety related short would not show up in any operational test other than a destructive test. These meters need to be sample tested to determine if the manufacturing defect is widespread. I have photographs and diagrams that illustrate the defect.
Hi, I work for a company [REDACTED] that manufactures radon detectors (digital and smart). We periodically purchase competitive products and have them tested to ensure they are truly accurate products. The brand Elifecity has a product called Radon Guard. We purchased four of these products and sent them to a third party lab, [REDACTED], to be tested. The products were tested over a period of 48 hours and seven days in a chamber with radon levels of 26 pCi/L. The products showed average radon levels of 1.16 pCi/L and 1.17 pCi/L. I reported this to the Illinois Attorney General and to Amazon - to this day, these are still being sold on Amazon and consumers are relying on these to let them know their radon levels in their homes.
The consumer states he used the product to test an outlet in his home. While he was using the product he saw smoke and sparks coming from the test leads. At that time the consumer stopped using the product. The consumer was not injured. He states the product has 4 places on the test leads that have exposed copper. He states this was his first time using the product and the wire test leads appeared intact and did not appear damaged before he used it. Consumer believes the unit poses a fire and shock hazard.
The Klein product in question did not do its job. As such on a live 110-120Volt line it showed or sounded any live current. After three attempts kill the proper breaker( it still malfunctioned) now this was for me not a life threatening situation as I had the peoprer PPE on but still with no visual audio or other means of detections I did suffer a small mlli second shock. But the point is Klein has a much better reputation than this an should not be putting to market items that arent fully capable of detecting any voltage let alone what this one is rated to. Had it of been something on this items upper limits certain death on my part.
Used the Pro Power Meter Electric Cost Meter, Model# PPM3000 with an air conditioner pulling approx 1400 watts. The Pro Power Meter melted along the live terminal of the plug
The on/off button does not function properly, comes on by itself and goes off during use. Constantly need to check to verify status, will go off during use, while it does have an auto off function, is not it does not work in a predictable pattern. it is a NCVT-1 date code 07158-G6 this has been an ongoing issue but is becoming more unpredictable
I have a young son who turns 4 in July, my home was built in 1984 and due to our current and future needs I've determined that a electrical sub panel needs to be installed to lighten the load of a few 15 and 20 amp circuits that are close to/at risk of being overloaded if any new devices are added to them. When it comes to my sons young age and the increasing age of my home, 35+ years, advancements in device safety and the laundry list of recommended updates of the past 13 editions of the National Electric Code since my home was built. Due to my extreme desire to keep my entire family safe, my 3 year old son from doing something really stupid like shoving a metal object into an outlet... Much like his dear ol' dad did around his age, I'm now 32 and remember it vividly but it has led to a lifelong interest in all things electric and I make my living as a day trader and the stock market my degree is in electrical engineering which is great but it was stupid and I don't recommend it and to keep my home not on fire I have a pretty long list updates to get done from install the sub panel to updating the receptacles' to tamper resistant ones as well as adding ones with USB charging and or GFCI/AFCI etc, updated breakers and adding circuits and receptacles' where needed. The main purpose is for my family and I to be safe and if I couldn't do any of these updates safely or to a high enough level where I can guarantee it was done correctly and poses no risk from poor installation or use of the wrong tool etc I would more than happily have a professional handle it and step one of just about any electrical job is shutting off the power to either the whole home or to the circuit being worked on. Just to be safe I always use my KLEIN TOOLS Circuit Breaker finder tool in the outlet, light fixture or switch being worked on so the correct breaker is turned off, I then would power on one of the 2 now recalled non contact voltage tester, test it on an outlet or fixture that notice
suffered a electric shock
Showing 8 of 30 reports.
Product Recalls
Search for active and past recalls related to electrical testing equipment on the CPSC website.
Frequently Asked Questions
How dangerous are electrical testing equipment?
Based on 20 years of CPSC data, electrical testing equipment have a danger score of 23/100 (low risk). An estimated 78 ER-treated injuries occur annually in the U.S. related to this product category.
What are the most common injuries from electrical testing equipment?
The most common injury is electric shock to the all parts body, accounting for approximately 156 injuries over 20 years.
Are injuries from electrical testing equipment increasing or decreasing?
Down 34% over 5 years.
Who is most at risk for electrical testing equipment injuries?
The 45-54 age group accounts for the most injuries, with approximately 237 cases recorded over 20 years. Males are more frequently injured in this age group.
What happens when someone is injured by electrical testing equipment?
Of all ER visits involving electrical testing equipment, approximately 6.3% result in hospital admission. The majority of patients (93.8%) are treated and released from the emergency department.
How can I report a safety problem with electrical testing equipment?
You can file a consumer incident report at SaferProducts.gov, the official CPSC reporting portal. Reports help the CPSC identify emerging hazards and trigger investigations or recalls. You can also call the CPSC hotline at 1-800-638-2772.
Related Products in Home Communication & Entertainment
Safety Guides
What this means for you
Treat the 23/100 score as relative risk between products, not your personal odds of injury.
- See where this category ranks against every other tracked product. Full rankings
- Injuries cluster in the 45-54 age group, take extra care if that describes your household.
- Check for active recalls on this product before you assume it is safe. CPSC recalls
NEISS estimates ER-treated injuries from a national probability sample of hospitals; they do not capture injuries treated elsewhere or not treated at all.
Data: CPSC National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) 2005–2024 and SaferProducts.gov consumer incident reports. Injury estimates are based on a nationally representative probability sample of U.S. hospital emergency departments. This page is for informational purposes only and is not affiliated with the CPSC.
Read our methodology - how this data is sourced, scored, and verified.