Danger score versus ER volume
Danger score versus ER volume
According to CPSC NEISS 2005-2024, Glass Tubing Or Test Tubes ranks #659 of 838 by danger score (30/100) at ER-volume #643 of 838 (375/yr). They are not the same ranking.
- #659
- danger rank of 838
- #643
- ER-volume rank of 838
- 30/100
- danger score
- 375/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 (30/100) across 838 scored CPSC product categories
30 Among the lowest lower than 79% 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 · 2024
Composite verdict
Composite Safety Score: 29/100
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.
| Dimension | Value | National percentile | Weight applied | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Injury severity (hospitalization + fatality blend) | 4 | 37th | 35% | CPSC NEISS 20-year severity index |
| Annual ER injury volume | 375 | 21st | 30% | CPSC NEISS estimated annual ER-treated injuries |
| 5-year injury trend | -0% | 66th | 15% | CPSC NEISS 5-year % change in ER-treated injuries |
| Consumer incident reports | 0 | 0th | 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 7,495 estimated ER injuries land on the body
Body-part shares from the same CPSC NEISS injury_types extract for product code 1124. Segments sum to 7,495 - 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 Containers & Packaging 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.
Containers & Packaging danger scores
How this 30/100 score is built
The score is computed from four CPSC-derived factors for glass tubing or test tubes - no opinion, no editorializing:
- Injury volume 375 ER visits/yr Low volume
- Severity (hospitalization rate) 4.4% Below median admission rate
- Fatality rate 0.00% No recorded fatalities
- 5-year trend-0%
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 20-year NEISS window from 2005 to 2024, injury counts for glass tubing or test tubes are roughly flat over the last five years, with the busiest year on record being 2008 (725 estimated ER visits) and the quietest 2019 (188 estimated visits). The single most common ER diagnosis is laceration to the finger, accounting for approximately 2,838 visits across the 20-year NEISS window, followed by laceration to the hand (1,163 cases). The 15-24 age group absorbs the largest share of injuries, about 3,162 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 4.4% 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 20 anonymized ER narratives - together forming a layered picture of how glass tubing or test tubes 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 (2005–2024)
Source: CPSC NEISS national estimates Injuries represent ER-treated cases only
Who Gets Injured?
| Age Group | Male | Female | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0-4 | 200 | 202 | |
| 5-14 | 813 | 515 | |
| 15-24 | 1,981 | 1,181 | |
| 25-34 | 851 | 292 | |
| 35-44 | 131 | 179 | |
| 45-54 | 188 | 87 | |
| 55-64 | 357 | 211 | |
| 65-74 | 79 | 62 | |
| 75+ | 0 | 168 |
Most Common Injuries
| Body Part | Diagnosis | Est. Injuries |
|---|---|---|
| Finger | Laceration | |
| Hand | Laceration | |
| All Parts Body | Poisoning | |
| Lower Trunk | Foreign Body | |
| Finger | Foreign Body | |
| Internal | Ingestion | |
| Hand | Foreign Body | |
| Finger | Puncture | |
| Eyeball | Derma/conjunct | |
| Face | Other | |
| Pubic Region | Foreign Body | |
| Face | Laceration | |
| Finger | Contusions, Abr. | |
| Eyeball | Other | |
| Upper Trunk | Puncture |
Severity Breakdown
ER Visit Narratives
Real anonymized emergency room reports from the CPSC NEISS database.
18 YOM INJURED FINGER, IN CHEMISTRY CLASS, TODAY, BROKE A BEAKER. DX- LACERATION LEFT THUMB
14YOM LACERATIONS TO BOTH HANDS AFTER BEAKER SHATTERED IN SCIENCE CLASS. DX: LACERATION OF RIGHT HAND WITHOUT FOREIGN BODY; LACERATION OF LEFT HAND WITHOUT FOREIGN BODY.
21YOM WAS IN CHEMISTRY CLASS AND THE BEAKER OR GRADUATED CYLINDER BROKE CUTTING HIS LEFT THUMB DX: LACERATION OF LEFT THUMB
18YOM CUT THUMB TODAY WHILE IN CLASS, FLASK IN CHEMISTRY CLASS BROKE, DX LAC TO FINGER
47YOM PT'S FRIEND WAS HAVING A SCHIZOPHRENIC EPISODE & STRUCK PT IN THE EAR WITH PIECE OF JAGGED GLASS TUBE CONTAINING DRUG RESIDUE DX: EAR ABRASION
20 YOM TRIED TO REMOVE A CYLINDRICAL GLASS ENCASED MAGNET FROM HIS LEFT HAND, HE ATTEMPTED TO REMOVE IT WITH NO SUCCESS, HAS TO PUNCTURE MARKS, WANTS IT REMOVED.DX: FOREIGN BODY IN HAND AND LAC TO SKIN OF HAND
62YOM PUTTING HAND INTO A GLASS TUBE AND GLASS BROKEDX LAC HAND, W/ FB
29YOM CUT THUMB AND FINGER ON GLASS TUBES, DX LAC TO FINGERS
2yoF brought in by Mom after possibly ingestion anticoagulant from blood specimen tube, which contained Sodium Fluoride and Potassium, while at ***, a laboratory. Mom reports she saw no blood in tube, no blood or liquid around or inside mouth but wanted pt evaluated. DX: Hx of possible ingestion of foreign substance; Normal physical exam.
32 YOM REPORTS TWISTING A GLASS VIAL THAT BROKE CUTTING HIS FINGER. DX: LACERATION OF FINGER
24YOF CUT THUMB ON A PIECE OF GLASS FROM A BEAKER IN HER CHEMISTRY LAB. DX: RIGHT THUMB LAC.
16 MOF possibly swallowed some glass particles of an ampule. Pt was found playing with *** hair vitamins, mom could not find the glass ampule pieces and does not know if they were ingested by pt.DX: Enconter for medical screening examination
Product Recalls
Search for active and past recalls related to glass tubing or test tubes on the CPSC website.
Compare beyond Containers & Packaging
Nationwide peers by danger score, ER volume & hospitalization
Three PlainSafety-derived comparison paths for Glass Tubing Or Test Tubes: cross-group products nearest on danger score (30/100), estimated annual ER visits (375/yr), and hospitalization share (4.4%). 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 Containers & Packaging
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, Glass Tubing Or Test Tubes ranks #659 of 838 scored CPSC product categories by PlainSafety danger score and #643 of 838 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume.
Frequently Asked Questions
Where does glass tubing or test tubes rank on danger score versus ER volume?
Among 838 scored CPSC product categories, glass tubing or test tubes ranks #659 by PlainSafety danger score (30/100) and #643 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume (375/yr). The two rankings come from the same NEISS extract and are not the same order.
What are the most common injuries from glass tubing or test tubes?
The most common injury is laceration to the finger, accounting for approximately 2,838 injuries over 20 years.
Are injuries from glass tubing or test tubes increasing or decreasing?
Stable over 5 years.
Who is most at risk for glass tubing or test tubes injuries?
The 15-24 age group accounts for the most injuries, with approximately 3,162 cases recorded over 20 years. Males are more frequently injured in this age group.
What happens when someone is injured by glass tubing or test tubes?
Of all ER visits involving glass tubing or test tubes, approximately 4.4% result in hospital admission. The majority of patients (95.6%) are treated and released from the emergency department.
How can I report a safety problem with glass tubing or test tubes?
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.
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.