Danger score versus ER volume
Danger score versus ER volume
According to CPSC NEISS 2009-2024, Glass Bottle Cutting Equipment ranks #830 of 838 by danger score (18/100) at ER-volume #810 of 838 (74/yr). They are not the same ranking.
- #830
- danger rank of 838
- #810
- ER-volume rank of 838
- 18/100
- danger score
- 74/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 595 estimated ER injuries land on the body
Body-part shares from the same CPSC NEISS injury_types extract for product code 532. Segments sum to 595 - 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 Structures & Construction Materials 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 Structures & Construction Materials danger scores
How this 18/100 score is built
The score is computed from four CPSC-derived factors for glass bottle cutting equipment - no opinion, no editorializing:
- Injury volume74 ER visits/yr
- Severity (hospitalization rate)0.0%
- Fatality rate0.00%
- 5-year trend-63%
See the full methodology for the exact weighting of each factor.
What the CPSC Data Shows
Glass Bottle Cutting Equipment (CPSC product code 532, in the Home Structures & Construction Materials category) generate an estimated 74 emergency-room visits every year in the United States, adding up to roughly 595 ER-treated injuries across the 16-year span from 2009 to 2024. PlainSafety derives a danger score of 18/100 for this category (very 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 63% over the last five years, with the busiest year on record being 2016 (140 estimated ER visits) and the quietest 2014 (16 estimated visits).
The single most common ER diagnosis for glass bottle cutting equipment is laceration to the finger, accounting for approximately 311 visits across the 20-year NEISS window, followed by contusions, abr. to the eyeball (79 cases). The 35-44 age group absorbs the largest share of injuries, about 319 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 0.0% of ER visits involving this product end in hospital admission or transfer.
Beyond the hospital-sampled NEISS projections, this page also aggregates 0 consumer incident reports filed directly on SaferProducts.gov, plus 10 anonymized ER narratives - together forming a layered picture of how glass bottle cutting 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 2024-12-31. For regulatory context, consult CPSC recall notices and the SaferProducts.gov public database linked below.
Annual Injury Estimates (2009–2024)
Source: CPSC NEISS national estimates Injuries represent ER-treated cases only
Who Gets Injured?
| Age Group | Male | Female | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 15-24 | 16 | 0 | |
| 25-34 | 47 | 84 | |
| 35-44 | 241 | 78 | |
| 45-54 | 0 | 28 | |
| 55-64 | 0 | 86 | |
| 65-74 | 15 | 0 |
Most Common Injuries
| Body Part | Diagnosis | Est. Injuries |
|---|---|---|
| Finger | Laceration | |
| Eyeball | Contusions, Abr. | |
| Hand | Avulsion | |
| Lower Leg | Laceration | |
| Foot | Laceration | |
| Finger | Avulsion | |
| Hand | Laceration |
Severity Breakdown
ER Visit Narratives
Real anonymized emergency room reports from the CPSC NEISS database.
54YOF ACCIDENTALLY STEPPED ON A PIECE OF GLASS FROM A BROKEN GLASS BOTTLE DX: LACERATION FOOT
32yof presents for sutureremoval after cutting her hand on a glass bottle while rock climbing in *** 2 weeks ago. Pt has lac repaired by doc there. DX: Hand lac
56YOF WAS USING A DIAMOND BIT CUTTER CUTTING GLASS AND SUSTAINED A LACERATION TO LEFT INDEX FINGER
36YOF CUTTING GLASS FOR SOME CRAFT, WENT TO BREAK GLASS AFTER SCORING,SLIPPED, SLICED CHUNK THENAR REGION DX: SOFT TISSUE AVULSION R HAND
44 YOM C/O CUTTING HIS FINGER ON THE CUTTING WHEEL AT HOME TODAY. DX LACERATION LEFT INDEX FINGER
31YOM USING CERAMIC CUTTING BLADE,CUT LT RING FINGER ON BLADE DX: LACFINGER
DX LAC LT LITTLE FINGER 16YOM PATIENT C/O LAC TO LLF SUSTAINED DURINGGLASS CLASS AT SCHOOL HE SCORED THE GLASS WAS TRYING TO BREAK IT
CORNEAL ABRASION: 36YOM @ HOME CUTTING GLASS TO MAKE ARROWS,PIECE OF GLASS CAME UP & HIT EYE, CORNEAL ABRASION
72 YOM WAS USING A GLASS CUTTING TOOL AT HOME AND SUSTAINED AN AVULSIONINJURY TO HIS RIGHT THUMB
L LEG LACERATION: 27YOF CUTTING SOME STAIN GLASS, IT BROKE OFF, FALLINGON LEG & ANKLE, 12 CM LAC. L LOWER LEG FROM ANKLE TO MID SHAFT TIBIA
Product Recalls
Search for active and past recalls related to glass bottle cutting equipment on the CPSC website.
Frequently Asked Questions
Where does glass bottle cutting equipment rank on danger score versus ER volume?
Among 838 scored CPSC product categories, glass bottle cutting equipment ranks #830 by PlainSafety danger score (18/100) and #810 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume (74/yr). The two rankings come from the same NEISS extract and are not the same order.
What are the most common injuries from glass bottle cutting equipment?
The most common injury is laceration to the finger, accounting for approximately 311 injuries over 20 years.
Are injuries from glass bottle cutting equipment increasing or decreasing?
Down 63% over 5 years.
Who is most at risk for glass bottle cutting equipment injuries?
The 35-44 age group accounts for the most injuries, with approximately 319 cases recorded over 20 years. Males are more frequently injured in this age group.
What happens when someone is injured by glass bottle cutting equipment?
Of all ER visits involving glass bottle cutting equipment, approximately 0.0% result in hospital admission. The majority of patients (100.0%) are treated and released from the emergency department.
How can I report a safety problem with glass bottle cutting 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.
Compare beyond Home Structures & Construction Materials
Nationwide peers by danger score, ER volume & hospitalization
Three PlainSafety-derived comparison paths for Glass Bottle Cutting Equipment: cross-group products nearest on danger score (18/100), estimated annual ER visits (74/yr), and hospitalization share (0.0%). Same-group neighbours stay in Related Products above.
Similar danger score
Nearest cross-group products by PlainSafety danger score (100-point scale).
Similar ER visit volume
Nearest cross-group products by NEISS estimated annual ER visits.
Similar hospitalization rate
Nearest cross-group products by % of NEISS ER visits resulting in hospital admission.
Related Products in Home Structures & Construction Materials
Read with this product
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. According to PlainSafety's CPSC NEISS corpus ranking, Glass Bottle Cutting Equipment ranks #830 of 838 scored CPSC product categories by PlainSafety danger score and #810 of 838 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume.
Read our methodology - how this data is sourced, scored, and verified.
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.