CPSC NEISS · code 852

Rope Or String

Rope Or String: danger rank #173 of 838 is not ER-volume rank #203 of 838 (10,628 estimated ER visits a year; roughly flat over the last five years).

Home Communication & Entertainment CPSC NEISS through 2024

Danger score versus ER volume

Danger score versus ER volume

According to CPSC NEISS 2005-2024, Rope Or String ranks #173 of 838 by danger score (40/100) at ER-volume #203 of 838 (10,628/yr). They are not the same ranking.

#173
danger rank of 838
#203
ER-volume rank of 838
40/100
danger score
10,628/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 (40/100) across 838 scored CPSC product categories

40 Higher than most more dangerous than 75% 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: 63/100

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.

D
Dimension Value National percentile Weight applied Source
Injury severity (hospitalization + fatality blend) 8 67th 35% CPSC NEISS 20-year severity index
Annual ER injury volume 10,628 75th 30% CPSC NEISS estimated annual ER-treated injuries
5-year injury trend -5% 59th 15% CPSC NEISS 5-year % change in ER-treated injuries
Consumer incident reports 7 40th 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 212,580 estimated ER injuries land on the body

Body-part shares from the same CPSC NEISS injury_types extract for product code 852. Segments sum to 212,580 - 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. Rope Or String40/1007. Power Saws, Other Or Not …40/1008. Saws, Not Specified40/100
Higher score = higher composite danger in this group. Peer set is other scored products sharing the same CPSC group.
0/100100/10040/100
PlainSafety danger score · Rope Or String

Source: CPSC NEISS danger-score model As of 2024

How this 40/100 score is built

The score is computed from four CPSC-derived factors for rope or string - no opinion, no editorializing:

  • Injury volume 10,628 ER visits/yr High volume
  • Severity (hospitalization rate) 7.5% Above median admission rate
  • Fatality rate 0.09% Above-typical fatality rate
  • 5-year trend-5%

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 rope or string are roughly flat over the last five years, with the busiest year on record being 2008 (12,656 estimated ER visits) and the quietest 2021 (8,156 estimated visits). The single most common ER diagnosis is laceration to the finger, accounting for approximately 16,488 visits across the 20-year NEISS window, followed by fracture to the finger (12,507 cases). The 5-14 age group absorbs the largest share of injuries, about 47,618 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 7.5% of ER visits involving this product end in hospital admission or transfer, and a small fraction (0.09%) result in fatality.

Beyond the hospital-sampled NEISS projections, this page also aggregates 7 consumer incident reports filed directly on SaferProducts.gov, plus 20 anonymized ER narratives - together forming a layered picture of how rope or string 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)

7K8K9K10K11K12K13K 20052008201120142017202020232024 10K
Estimated annual emergency-room visits for Rope Or String, CPSC NEISS

Source: CPSC NEISS national injury estimates As of 2024

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

Who Gets Injured?

Age Group Male Female Total
0-4 6,775 5,592 12,367
5-14 28,486 19,132 47,618
15-24 24,709 12,946 37,655
25-34 18,407 7,528 25,935
35-44 16,611 6,898 23,509
45-54 13,979 7,588 21,567
55-64 11,595 6,673 18,268
65-74 9,108 5,423 14,531
75+ 7,123 3,992 11,115

Most Common Injuries

Body Part Diagnosis Est. Injuries
Finger Laceration 16,488
Finger Fracture 12,507
Head Internal Injury 8,470
Hand Contusions, Abr. 7,460
Finger Amputation 5,533
Hand Laceration 5,456
Wrist Fracture 5,165
Face Laceration 5,052
Ankle Strain, Sprain 4,718
Shoulder Strain, Sprain 4,142
Neck Contusions, Abr. 3,402
Head Laceration 3,397
Eyeball Contusions, Abr. 3,364
Wrist Strain, Sprain 3,310
Upper Trunk Contusions, Abr. 3,271

Severity Breakdown

Treated/examined And Released 91.5% (194,448)
Treated And Admitted/hospitalized 5.0% (10,585)
Treated And Transferred 2.4% (5,106)
Left Without Being Seen 0.9% (1,960)
Held For Observation 0.1% (286)
Fatality Incl. Doa, Died In Er 0.1% (195)

ER Visit Narratives

Real anonymized emergency room reports from the CPSC NEISS database.

Age 4 · Male · Wrist · Other · 2024

4YOM PRESENT TO ED W/ L WRIST/ARM PX. LAST NIGHT PT AND BROTHER WERE PLAYING W/ A STRING THAT WAS WRAPPED AROUND HIS L ARM,PULLING ON HIS ARM,UNWITNESSED BY PT'S MOTHER,REPORTED BY BROTHER-POOR HISTORIAN.PT WENT TO SLEEP WOKE THISAM W/ PX.WONT USE ARM,SEEMS LIMP.PT PLAYFUL NO APPARENT INJURIESDX:PX IN L WIST

Age 34 · Female · Finger · Laceration · 2024

34 YOF INJ RT HAND HOOKING UP TOW ROPE TO VEHICLE ROPE SNAPPED AT HOME DX LAC RT MIDDLE FINGER ;

Age 6 · Male · Mouth · Other · 2024

6 YOM S/P FALL AT SCHOOL. TRIPPED OVER A ROPE AND FELL HITTING HIS LIP. DX SWELLING UPPER LIP, FALL

Age 74 · Male · Hand · Contusions, Abr. · 2024

74YOM GOT HIS FOOT TANGLED UP IN A ROPE AND FELL ON THE ICE LANDING ON HIS LEFT KNEE AND RIGHT WRIST, HAS A SUPERFICIAL ABRASION OF THE RIGHT PALM AND LEFT KNEE PAIN DX: LEFT KNEE PAIN; FALL

Age 75 · Female · Finger · Foreign Body · 2024

75YOF C/O RIGHT INDEX FINGER PAIN. WAS CLEANING OFF A PIECE OF WOOD FURNITURE AND A SPLINTER GOT STUCK UNDER HER NAIL ON CHRISTMAS. NOTED TO HAVE SMALL PIECE OF STRING ATTACHED TO IT AND WAS UNABLE TO PULL IT OUT. SIGNIFICANT PAIN NOW AND SWELLING. DX: FINGER INFECTION, SPLINTER OF FINGER

Age 18 · Female · Finger · Fracture · 2024

18YOF PRESENTS WITH INJURY TO RIGHT INDEX AND RING FINGER AFTER ROPING CATTLE DURING *** SHE GOT HER FINGERS CAUGHT IN THE ROPE DX: NEED FOR TDAP VACCINATION, OPEN FINGER FRACTURE

Age 13 · Female · Wrist · Strain, Sprain · 2024

13YOF WAS DOING ROPE CLIMBING EXERCISES IN PE CLASS AT SCHOOL WHEN SHE FELL THE DX: STRAINED LEFT WRIST

Age 215 · Male · All Parts Body · Anoxia · 2024

15 MOM HAD WRAPPED STRING AROUND NECK DISCOVERED RED IN FACE DX ACCIDENTAL STRANGULATION

Age 27 · Female · Lower Trunk · Other · 2024

27YOF PRESENTS WITH ABDOMINAL PAIN AFTER TRIPPING OVER A ROPE AND FALLING ONE NIGHT PRIOR ISO ALCOHOL USE. NO BAC. DX: ABDOMINAL PAIN

Age 31 · Male · Face · Laceration · 2024

31YOM, WAS PLAYING WITH HIS DAUGHTER AT A RECREATIONAL CENTER WHEN ANOTHER KID THROUGH A ROPE THAT HIT HIM IN THE FACE, DX: LEFT EYELID LACERATION; ACUTE NON INTRACTABLE HEADACHE

Age 2 · Female · Face · Foreign Body · 2024

2YOF W/ A PIECE OF STRING STUCK IN HER NOSE. DX: FB NOSE

Age 2 · Female · Face · Foreign Body · 2024

2YOF PRESENTED TO ER WITH FOREIGN BODY IN NOSE. BALL OF SRING REMOVED FROM RT NOSTRIL. DX: FOREIGN BODY IN NOSE

Consumer Incident Reports

Reports filed by consumers on SaferProducts.gov.

9/16/2017 · Incident, No Injury · The MIBRO Group · Missouri

KingCord 5/16" x 75' Diamond Braid Polypropylene Rope Model Number: 301861 Purchased from Variation: Camouflage Forest UPC 0 6636630186 1 MenardsMANCHESTER 14161 MANCHESTER ROAD BALLWIN, MO 63011 Two of these ropes rated at 110lbs S.W.L were used to hang my child's swing in a shady outdoor location. No products other than water were ever sprayed on the rope. Both ropes snapped simultaneously about 18 inches above the child's hands while a child was swinging. There was no sign of excessive wear. This occurred after only 2 years of light occasional use by small children. Upon closer inspection and sampling along the length of the rope, the entire white solid core of the rope had completely disintegrated. When the core were removed from the outer wrapping and lightly compressed it turned to white dust.

6/18/2025 · No Incident, No Injury · HOKINETY · Kentucky

Independent third-party laboratory testing conducted by [REDACTED] in June 2025 revealed that multiple paracord rope products sold by the Amazon seller [REDACTED] were falsely advertised as having a 1,000 lb breaking strength and being made of 100% nylon. Testing confirmed significantly lower strength ratings and revealed that the material is 100% polyester. These discrepancies present serious safety risks for consumers relying on this product for survival, emergency, or load-bearing purposes. What type of product(s) were being used? Paracord rope marketed and sold as 1000 lb Paracord and 100% Nylon on Amazon.com by seller [REDACTED]. Specifically: B0B1N3HS5V (Green) B0B1N7T1J8 (Black) B0B1N18LH1 (Blue) Who was using the product(s)? This product is marketed to and available to the general public through Amazon.com. It is commonly used by outdoor enthusiasts, survivalists, emergency preparedness professionals, and general consumers. How were the product(s) being used? These types of paracord products are generally used for emergency situations, securing gear, climbing, rigging, survival situations, and load-bearing applications, based on their labeled tensile strength and material. Were there any injuries that happened or may have happened while using the product? No known injuries have been reported at this time. However, the risk of injury is substantial due to the false claims regarding load-bearing capacity and material composition. Consumers relying on this rope under emergency or weight-bearing conditions may experience catastrophic failure that could result in serious injury or death. How did any injuries occur? N/A no specific injuries documented at this time. However, the danger stems from reliance on misrepresented product specifications that could lead to equipment failure in high-risk situations.

6/11/2012 · Incident, No Injury · ROPE KING USA LLC · New York

I bought 200 feet of 3/4 inch twisted nylon rope from Rope King through Amazon.com. I unrolled the rope off the reel for some tree work and found two places where strands of the rope were cut completely through. I sent 2 e-mails to Rope King a week apart and when I got no response I called and spoke to [REDACTED], the customer rep. She told me she was not authorized to discuss the safety of the rope and sent me to someone's voicemail. After another week I figured I'm not going to get a response, but I think someone needs to look at the product this company is selling for heavy duty work. The rope type I bought was Rope King TN-34200. [REDACTED]

5/8/2025 · No Incident, No Injury · Dongguan Xingyunshu E-commerce Co, Ltd. · Kentucky

I am submitting a complaint regarding an unsafe and misleadingly advertised product currently being sold on Amazon by the seller VVAAGG. Product Details: Paracord Rope 1000 lb Product Listing Links: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0D5B6QEDF https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0D5B5G8H8 The product listings referenced here make two key representations: Breaking Strength: 1000 lbs Material Composition: 100% Nylon However, independent lab testing ([REDACTED] report attached as [REDACTED]) demonstrates the following: Actual Breaking Strength: Only 324 lbs for the Army color and 361.2 lbs for the black color, well below the 1000 lb claim Actual Material Composition: 0% Nylon; the rope consists of 100% polyester (inner core) and 100% polypropylene (outer sheath). Testing. The FTC requirement is 100% nylon for both inner and outer fibers. This discrepancy is severe and poses a material risk to consumers who may rely on this product for critical weight-bearing applications such as climbing, rescue, or survival gear. Applicable Violations: False Advertising: Misrepresentation of strength and materials is a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act (unfair and deceptive practices). Product Safety Concern: The grossly exaggerated strength rating creates a serious safety hazard to consumers who depend on the product's advertised capabilities. Labeling Concerns: Initial review indicates that the product lacks compliant labeling as required under federal law, including the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) and the Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (TFPIA).

4/4/2024 · No Incident, No Injury · Pellini SpA · Ohio

Flower one year old pulled the string off of a glass door. The string is supposed to pull the blinds inside the glass up and down. The string was attached by a magnet and our son was caught in the string and almost put the magnet in his mouth.

3/20/2025 · Incident, No Injury · HOKINETY · United States

This law firm is submitting a formal complaint concerning the Amazon seller [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] actively engages in deceptive advertising, product misrepresentation, and the sale of dangerously defective merchandise, notably, the Hokinety "Paracord Type III 1000 lb", on the Amazon platform. More specifically, this matter involves the Hokinety "Paracord Type III 1000 lb" (the Product) falsely advertised under multiple listings: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B1N7T1J8 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B1N3HS5V The advertised specifications of the Product are materially false and misleading, and Amazon's continued sale of these listings poses a serious risk to consumer safety. Consumers are relying on the attributes outlined in the Amazon listings for load-bearing applications, which is particularly dangerous. The [REDACTED] testing we commissioned provides incontrovertible proof of misrepresentation, demonstrating violations of Amazon's policies, federal consumer protection laws, and the FTC guidelines on deceptive advertising. We are happy to provide the [REDACTED] testing results we have obtained to date upon request. We are diligently pursuing additional testing and may supplement this submission. Key Violations & Findings 1. False Advertising: Breaking Strength Claims (1,000 lbs. vs. 525 lbs.) The Product is marketed as Paracord Type III 1,000 lb breaking strength on both Amazon listings and product packaging. [REDACTED] independent lab testing confirms that the actual breaking strength is only 525 lbs., nearly 50% lower than advertised. This egregious misrepresentation endangers consumers relying on the specifications for the product's survival, safety, and load-bearing applications. 2. Material Misrepresentation: Polyester Material Rather than Nylon (as Advertised) The Product is advertised as 100% Nylon in its Amazon listing and packaging. [REDACTED] testing proves the Product is, in fact, 100% polyester, a cheap

12/28/2021 · Incident, No Injury · Tea Forte Inc. · United States

A flame ignited from to heating a teabag in the microwave. This product is from TeaForte.com. I received this nice tea set as a gift. I was heating up one of their teabags in a cup of water in the microwave like I normally do for other teas I purchase. A flame on the "string" connected to the tea bag immediately ignited. Thankfully, I was able to stop the power on the microwave and blow out the flame. Had I walked away, that flame could have caused a horrible fire in my home and possibly injuring myself. Afterwards, I looked closer at the tea box. On the BOTTOM of the box and the BOTTOM of each package of tea (each is packaged individually in a smaller box), it does say DO NOT MICROWAVE INFUSER. I inspected the string further by cutting it open and found that there is a thin metal string with cloth string wrapped around it. So it is not apparent that this product contains metal and must not be used in the microwave. The product that I specifically have is in an orange box and labeled CHAKRA. I am not sure how can this company can expect every consumer to know to look at the BOTTOM and read the very small printed instructions. This is a very dangerous product for those not familiar with this type of tea bag infuser. The box says this is a product crafted for Tea Forte, Inc. Maynard, MA 01754, USA, Certified Organic by CERES GMBH, a Product of Germany and packed in China.

Product Recalls

Search for active and past recalls related to rope or string on the CPSC website.

Compare beyond Home Communication & Entertainment

Nationwide peers by danger score, ER volume & hospitalization

Three PlainSafety-derived comparison paths for Rope Or String: cross-group products nearest on danger score (40/100), estimated annual ER visits (10,628/yr), and hospitalization share (7.5%). 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, Rope Or String ranks #173 of 838 scored CPSC product categories by PlainSafety danger score and #203 of 838 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume.

Frequently Asked Questions

Where does rope or string rank on danger score versus ER volume?

Among 838 scored CPSC product categories, rope or string ranks #173 by PlainSafety danger score (40/100) and #203 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume (10,628/yr). The two rankings come from the same NEISS extract and are not the same order.

What are the most common injuries from rope or string?

The most common injury is laceration to the finger, accounting for approximately 16,488 injuries over 20 years.

Are injuries from rope or string increasing or decreasing?

Stable over 5 years.

Who is most at risk for rope or string injuries?

The 5-14 age group accounts for the most injuries, with approximately 47,618 cases recorded over 20 years. Males are more frequently injured in this age group.

What happens when someone is injured by rope or string?

Of all ER visits involving rope or string, approximately 7.5% result in hospital admission. The majority of patients (92.5%) are treated and released from the emergency department.

How can I report a safety problem with rope or string?

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 Rope Or String is compiled directly from CPSC NEISS and SaferProducts.gov records, current through 2024. 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.