Danger score versus ER volume
Danger score versus ER volume
According to CPSC NEISS 2005-2024, Liniments Or Rubbing Compounds ranks #526 of 838 by danger score (33/100) at ER-volume #463 of 838 (1,611/yr). They are not the same ranking.
- #526
- danger rank of 838
- #463
- ER-volume rank of 838
- 33/100
- danger score
- 1,611/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 (33/100) across 838 scored CPSC product categories
33 Lower than most lower than 63% 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: 36/100
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) | 3 | 28th | 35% | CPSC NEISS 20-year severity index |
| Annual ER injury volume | 1,611 | 42nd | 30% | CPSC NEISS estimated annual ER-treated injuries |
| 5-year injury trend | -7% | 55th | 15% | CPSC NEISS 5-year % change in ER-treated injuries |
| Consumer incident reports | 3 | 28th | 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 32,214 estimated ER injuries land on the body
Body-part shares from the same CPSC NEISS injury_types extract for product code 1915. Segments sum to 32,214 - 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 Transportation & Substances 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.
Transportation & Substances danger scores
How this 33/100 score is built
The score is computed from four CPSC-derived factors for liniments or rubbing compounds - no opinion, no editorializing:
- Injury volume 1,611 ER visits/yr Below median volume
- Severity (hospitalization rate) 3.3% Below median admission rate
- Fatality rate 0.00% No recorded fatalities
- 5-year trend-7%
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 liniments or rubbing compounds are roughly flat over the last five years, with the busiest year on record being 2006 (2,356 estimated ER visits) and the quietest 2016 (1,108 estimated visits). The single most common ER diagnosis is poisoning to the all parts body, accounting for approximately 30,901 visits across the 20-year NEISS window, followed by burn, chemical to the eyeball (982 cases). The 0-4 age group absorbs the largest share of injuries, about 32,216 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 3.3% of ER visits involving this product end in hospital admission or transfer.
Beyond the hospital-sampled NEISS projections, this page also aggregates 3 consumer incident reports filed directly on SaferProducts.gov, plus 20 anonymized ER narratives - together forming a layered picture of how liniments or rubbing compounds 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 | 16,511 | 15,634 |
Most Common Injuries
| Body Part | Diagnosis | Est. Injuries |
|---|---|---|
| All Parts Body | Poisoning | |
| Eyeball | Burn, Chemical | |
| Face | Burn, Chemical | |
| Internal | Ingestion | |
| Eyeball | Foreign Body | |
| Eyeball | Contusions, Abr. | |
| Mouth | Burn, Chemical | |
| Ear | Contusions, Abr. | |
| Lower Trunk | Burn, Chemical |
Severity Breakdown
ER Visit Narratives
Real anonymized emergency room reports from the CPSC NEISS database.
15MOM POSSIBLE INGESTION OF *** ***. PER FATHER, PT HAD IT 'ALL OVER HANDS AND KNOWS HOW CHILDREN PUT HANDS IN THEIR MOUTH PC CONTACTED BY FAMILY PRIOR TO ED VISITDX ACCIDENTAL INGESTION
3YOM C/O INGESTION. PATIENT LICKED ROLLER OF CAMPHOR GEL. POISON CONTROL CONTACTED. NO TREATMENT RECOMMENDED. DX: ACCIDENTAL INGESTION
14MOM P/W INGESTION, AS PER MOM PT SWOLLED ONE TEASPOON OF *** GEL AT HOME, C/O NONE, DX:DRUG INGESTION
15 MOM PRESENTS WITH POSSIBLE INGESTION OF *** GEL THAT GRANDMOTHER FOUND PATIENT HAD PUT IN HIS HAIR AND WAS WORRIED THAT HE MIGHT HAVE INGESTED SOME OF IT. HE IS ASYMPTOMATIC. DX: ENCOUNTER FOR OBSERVATION OF SUSPECTED TOXIC EFFECT FROM INGESTED SUBSTANCE
2YOM PRESENTS TO THE ED BROUGHT IN BY MOTHER AFTER SUSPECTED ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL INGESTION. PATIENT WAS FOUND WITH AN EMPTY BOTTLE OF RUBBING ALCOHOL WITH HIS CLOTHES DRENCHED WITH ALCOHOL BAL UNKNOWN DX: ACCIDENTAL INGESTION OF ISOPROPANOL
18MOF PRESENTS TO THE ED AFTER THE PATIENT INGESTED 4.5G OF BENZOCAINE OINTMENT. PER PATIENT'S MOTHER IT WAS A NEW TUBE AND THAT WAS MISSING AMOUNT. DX: BENZOCAINE POISONING, ACCIDENTAL DRUG INGESTION
19MOM MOM CAUGHT HIM DRINKING FROM A BOTTLE OF RUBBING ALCOHOL, SHE GRABBED IT FROM HIM AND HE STARTED VOMITING DX: INGESTION OF A SUBSTANCE
2YOF BIB MOM AFTER INGESTION OF *** DX: TOXIC EFFECT OF PETROLEUM PRODUCT, UNINTENTIONAL
2YOM MOM FOUND HIM WITH AN OPEN BOTTLE OF *** HAD THE OINTMENTS SPREAD ALL OVER HIS BODY AND IN HIS MOUTH DX: ACCIDENTAL INGESTION OF SALICYLATES
19 MOM TOOK A SMALL SIP OF RUBBING ALCOHOL FROM A CLEAR BOTTLE, COUGHED, VOMITED AND SPIT IT OUT IMMEDIATELY. DX: INGESTION OF SUBSTANCE ACCIDENTAL
23MOF WITH EATING *** DX: WELLNESS EXAM
1YOM PRESENTS WITH INGESTION AT FOREIGN SUBSTANCE, PATIENT WAS FOUND WITH A 1/2 FULL TUBE OF *** IN HIS HAND AND SAMLL AMOUNT ON HIS FACE AND IN HIS MOUTH. PATIENTS PARENTS WIPED HIS FACE IMMEDIATLEY. PATIENT DID HAVE 1 SMALL EPISODE OF EMESIS RIGHT AFTER THE INCIDENT. SYMPTOMS HAVE RESOLVED. DX: INGESTION OF SUBSTANCE
Consumer Incident Reports
Reports filed by consumers on SaferProducts.gov.
An 18 mo girl bit into a camphor bar ( Deer Brand 96% camphor) that had been placed under her pillow by parents to relieve chest "congestion". She rapidly suffered 3 convulsions , requiring ED visit, seizure treatment, and hospitalization.
CHRISTIAN DAY'S PURE MAGIC PURE WINTERGREEN OIL (AKA METHYL SALICYLATE) DOES NOT HAVE A CHILD SAFETY CAP AS REQUIRED BY THE POISON PACKAGING PREVENTION ACT. I am concerned because even a small amount of methyl salicylate can be deadly if ingested. It is sold on the following websites: [redacted]
I put a little bit of the Roundfire premium flammable liquid on a warm pan & the flame shot out and burned my face and ignited my hair. I had to walk to the kitchen sink to put out the flame. Second degree burns on my face & hair loss due to fire. Ignition happened and the pan surface was just warm. Liquid was not added to a flame.
Product Recalls
Search for active and past recalls related to liniments or rubbing compounds on the CPSC website.
Compare beyond Transportation & Substances
Nationwide peers by danger score, ER volume & hospitalization
Three PlainSafety-derived comparison paths for Liniments Or Rubbing Compounds: cross-group products nearest on danger score (33/100), estimated annual ER visits (1,611/yr), and hospitalization share (3.3%). 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.
- Art Supplies Or Equipment Home Structures & Construction Materials 1,604/yr
- Wood Paneling And Particleboard Building Materials & Home Structures 1,621/yr
- Tetherball (activity, Apparel Or Equipment) Sports & Recreation Equipment 1,631/yr
- Appliances, Other And Not Specified Containers, Tableware & Packaging 1,642/yr
Similar hospitalization rate
Nearest cross-group products by % of NEISS ER visits resulting in hospital admission.
- Infant & Toddler Play Ctrs, Excl Jumpers,bouncers&exercisers Nursery & Baby Products 3.3%admitted
- Nonportable Cribs Nursery & Baby Products 3.3%admitted
- Plastic Products, Not Elsewhere Classified Building Materials & Home Structures 3.3%admitted
- Amateur Two-way Radios Home Structures & Construction Materials 3.3%admitted
Related Products in Transportation & Substances
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, Liniments Or Rubbing Compounds ranks #526 of 838 scored CPSC product categories by PlainSafety danger score and #463 of 838 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume.
Frequently Asked Questions
Where does liniments or rubbing compounds rank on danger score versus ER volume?
Among 838 scored CPSC product categories, liniments or rubbing compounds ranks #526 by PlainSafety danger score (33/100) and #463 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume (1,611/yr). The two rankings come from the same NEISS extract and are not the same order.
What are the most common injuries from liniments or rubbing compounds?
The most common injury is poisoning to the all parts body, accounting for approximately 30,901 injuries over 20 years.
Are injuries from liniments or rubbing compounds increasing or decreasing?
Stable over 5 years.
Who is most at risk for liniments or rubbing compounds injuries?
The 0-4 age group accounts for the most injuries, with approximately 32,216 cases recorded over 20 years. Males are more frequently injured in this age group.
What happens when someone is injured by liniments or rubbing compounds?
Of all ER visits involving liniments or rubbing compounds, approximately 3.3% result in hospital admission. The majority of patients (96.7%) are treated and released from the emergency department.
How can I report a safety problem with liniments or rubbing compounds?
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.