CPSC NEISS · code 815

Electrical Testing Equipment

Electrical Testing Equipment: danger rank #806 of 838 is not ER-volume rank #809 of 838 (78 estimated ER visits a year; declining by about 34% over the last five years).

Home Communication & Entertainment CPSC NEISS through 2021

Danger score versus ER volume

Danger score versus ER volume

According to CPSC NEISS 2005-2021, Electrical Testing Equipment ranks #806 of 838 by danger score (23/100) at ER-volume #809 of 838 (78/yr). They are not the same ranking.

#806
danger rank of 838
#809
ER-volume rank of 838
23/100
danger score
78/yr
estimated ER visits (avg)

Danger score combines injury volume, hospitalization, fatality, and five-year trend. ER volume is the average annual NEISS estimate alone. Rank 1 is highest on each list.

Where this category's danger score sits nationally

Danger score (23/100) across 838 scored CPSC product categories

23 Among the lowest lower than 96% of 838 product categories

scored CPSC product categories, bucketed by value

Each bar is a band; taller bars hold more product categories. The dashed line + filled bar mark this entry. Hover or tap any bar for its full count and share, and where it sits relative to this entry.

Source CPSC NEISS, PlainSafety danger-score model · 2021

Composite verdict

Composite Safety Score: 35/100

One verdict blending 4 independently-sourced dimensions from two separate CPSC systems, each benchmarked against all 838 scored product categories by percentile rather than raw value, so no single huge-volume category can dominate the scale.

B
Dimension Value National percentile Weight applied Source
Injury severity (hospitalization + fatality blend) 6 53rd 35% CPSC NEISS 20-year severity index
Annual ER injury volume 78 6th 30% CPSC NEISS estimated annual ER-treated injuries
5-year injury trend -34% 17th 15% CPSC NEISS 5-year % change in ER-treated injuries
Consumer incident reports 30 62nd 20% CPSC SaferProducts.gov public incident report count

Methodology: each dimension is ranked against the full population's p10/p25/p50/p75/p90 breakpoints and interpolated to a 0-100 percentile; the composite is the weighted average of available percentiles. See methodology for the full benchmark table.

Where 622 estimated ER injuries land on the body

Body-part shares from the same CPSC NEISS injury_types extract for product code 815. Segments sum to 622 - a body-map mix, not a danger score or ER-volume rank.

Two danger lenses

Same-group peer scores and this product's dial

The bars compare PlainSafety danger scores inside the Home Communication & Entertainment group (same CPSC NEISS extract). The dial is this product's score alone on the Low/Moderate/High bands. Do not read a peer bar as an ER-visit count.

Home Communication & Entertainment danger scores

1. Tools, Not Specified44/1002. Batteries43/1003. Bench Or Table Saws43/1004. Torches, Not Specified42/1005. Battery Chargers/adapters41/1006. Power Saws, Other Or Not …40/1007. Rope Or String40/1008. Electrical Testing Equipm…23/100
Higher score = higher composite danger in this group. Peer set is other scored products sharing the same CPSC group.
0/100100/10023/100
PlainSafety danger score · Electrical Testing Equipment

Source: CPSC NEISS danger-score model As of 2021

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 volume 78 ER visits/yr Low volume
  • Severity (hospitalization rate) 6.3% Above median admission rate
  • Fatality rate 0.00% No recorded fatalities
  • 5-year trend-34%

Band labels compare this category against the corpus of 838 scored CPSC product categories, see the full methodology for the exact weighting of each factor.

What the CPSC Data Shows

Across the 17-year NEISS window from 2005 to 2021, injury counts for electrical testing equipment 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 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)

050100150200 20052006201020132015201820192021 147
Estimated annual emergency-room visits for Electrical Testing Equipment, CPSC NEISS

Source: CPSC NEISS national injury estimates As of 2021

Source: CPSC NEISS national estimates Injuries represent ER-treated cases only

Who Gets Injured?

Age Group Male Female Total
0-4 69 0 69
5-14 16 0 16
15-24 21 0 21
25-34 81 55 136
35-44 0 57 57
45-54 221 16 237
65-74 86 0 86

Most Common Injuries

Body Part Diagnosis Est. Injuries
All Parts Body Electric Shock 156
Finger Puncture 81
Foot Other 73
Eyeball Other 70
Face Hematoma 69
Eyeball Laceration 55
Knee Other 55
Eyeball Contusions, Abr. 16
Face Burns, Thermal 16
Upper Arm Fracture 16
Wrist Strain, Sprain 15

Severity Breakdown

Treated/examined And Released 91.2% (567)
Treated And Transferred 8.8% (55)

ER Visit Narratives

Real anonymized emergency room reports from the CPSC NEISS database.

Age 3 · Male · Face · Hematoma · 2021

3YOM WAS OUTSIDE PLAYING WHEN HE JUMPED OFF A SMART METER AND HIT HIS FOREHEAD. DX HEMATOMA OF FOREHEAD@

Age 52 · Female · Upper Arm · Fracture · 2021

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

Age 15 · Male · All Parts Body · Electric Shock · 2021

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

Age 67 · Male · Face · Burns, Thermal · 2019

67YOM HAD AN ELECTRICAL METER BLOW UP IN HIS FACE, DX: BURN TO FACE

Age 26 · Female · Knee · Other · 2018

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

Age 53 · Male · Eyeball · Laceration · 2018

^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,

Age 28 · Male · Finger · Puncture · 2015

28 YOM SUSTAINED A PUNCTURE WOUND TO HIS L THUMB AFTER STABBING HIMSELFWITH AN ELECTRICAL VOLTAGE TESTER

Age 23 · Male · Wrist · Strain, Sprain · 2015

DX WRIST SPRAIN 23YOM PATIENT C/O RT WRIST PN BEGAN SLOWLY WHILE WORKING ON ELECTRICAL TESTING EQUIPMENT PN INCREASES WITH LIFTING

Age 68 · Male · Eyeball · Other · 2010

68YMC USING AN ELECTRICAL CONDUCTION TESTING METER IT FELL AND SHARPPOINT HIT EYE/EYE TRAUMA

Age 51 · Male · Foot · Other · 2006

JOINT PAIN, THINKS MAY HAVE TETANUS FROM ADCCIDENTLY POKING LEG WITH TEST LIGHT 3 MO. AGO. DX; ARTHRITIS FEET.

Age 6 · Male · Eyeball · Contusions, Abr. · 2005

RT CORNEAL AB-@ HOME-PICKED UP AN ELECTRIC TESTER-HIT EYE

Age 53 · Male · All Parts Body · Electric Shock · 2005

SHOCKED WHILE HOLDING AN ELECTRIC METER WHEN IT EXPLODED IN HIS HAND

Consumer Incident Reports

Reports filed by consumers on SaferProducts.gov.

8/18/2011 · Injury, Hospital Admission · Sears Holdings Management Corporation · California

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.

7/23/2021 · Incident, No Injury · Elifecity · Illinois

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.

7/16/2014 · Incident, No Injury · Harbor Freight Tools · West Virginia

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.

7/13/2021 · Injury, First Aid Received by Non-Medical Professional · KLEIN TOOLS INC · Ohio

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 aren’t 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.

7/11/2013 · Unspecified · Soleil Sun Alarm Company, LLC · California

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

6/30/2021 · Incident, No Injury · KLEIN TOOLS INC · California

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

6/28/2021 · Injury, First Aid Received by Non-Medical Professional · KLEIN TOOLS INC · California

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

6/28/2021 · Injury, Level of care not known · KLEIN TOOLS INC · Illinois

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.

Compare beyond Home Communication & Entertainment

Nationwide peers by danger score, ER volume & hospitalization

Three PlainSafety-derived comparison paths for Electrical Testing Equipment: cross-group products nearest on danger score (23/100), estimated annual ER visits (78/yr), and hospitalization share (6.3%). Same-group neighbours stay in Related Products above.

Read with this product

About this data

CPSC National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) 2005–2024 and SaferProducts.gov consumer incident reports form the basis of this page. Injury estimates are based on a nationally representative probability sample of U.S. hospital emergency departments.

According to PlainSafety's CPSC NEISS corpus ranking, Electrical Testing Equipment ranks #806 of 838 scored CPSC product categories by PlainSafety danger score and #809 of 838 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume.

Frequently Asked Questions

Where does electrical testing equipment rank on danger score versus ER volume?

Among 838 scored CPSC product categories, electrical testing equipment ranks #806 by PlainSafety danger score (23/100) and #809 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume (78/yr). The two rankings come from the same NEISS extract and are not the same order.

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.

Data on Electrical Testing Equipment is compiled directly from CPSC NEISS and SaferProducts.gov records, current through 2021. See our methodology for details.

Disclaimer: This page is for informational purposes only and is not affiliated with the CPSC.

PlainSafety is rendered directly from U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recall and incident records, no number is typed in by an editor. Product recall timelines and hazard labels are drawn from CPSC recall records for this product. See our editorial standards & corrections policy, the methodology behind these numbers, or report a data error. Data current as of August 2026.