ArticleAmerican journal of public health2015
Impact of Mandatory Carbon Monoxide Alarms: An Investigation of the Effects on Detection and Poisoning Rates in New York City.
Article in American journal of public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Burden of Carbon Monoxide Poisoning in Asian Countries From 1990 to 2021 and Its Projection Until 2030: An Analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021.Clinical epidemiology · 2025Article
- Article
- Global, regional, and national mortality due to unintentional carbon monoxide poisoning, 2000-2021: results from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021.The Lancet. Public health · 2023Article
- Analyzing the national fire incident reporting system to identify carbon monoxide incidents in the U.S. lodging industry.Preventive medicine reports · 2021Article
- Carbon monoxide poisoning surveillance in the Veterans Health Administration, 2010-2017.BMC public health · 2019Article
- A review of the experimental evidence on the toxicokinetics of carbon monoxide: the potential role of pathophysiology among susceptible groups.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2018Review
- Measurement of exhaled breath carbon monoxide in clinical practice: A study of levels in Central Pennsylvania community members.Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe sought to evaluate the impact of New York City's (NYC's) 2004 carbon monoxide (CO) alarm legislation on CO incident detection and poisoning rates.
methodsWe compared CO poisoning deaths, hospitalizations, exposures reported to Poison Control, and fire department investigations, before and after the law for 2000 to 2010. Use of CO alarms was assessed in the 2009 NYC Community Health Survey.
resultsInvestigations that found indoor CO levels greater than 9 parts per million increased nearly 7-fold after the law (P < .001). There were nonsignificant decreases in unintentional, nonfire-related CO poisoning hospitalization rates (P = .114) and death rates (P = .216). After we controlled for ambient temperature, the law's effect on hospitalizations remained nonsignificantly protective (incidence rate ratio = 0.747; 95% confidence interval = 0.520, 1.074). By 2009, 83% of NYC residents reported having CO alarms; only 54% also recently tested or replaced their batteries.
conclusionsMandating CO alarms significantly increased the detection of potentially hazardous CO levels in NYC homes. Small numbers and detection bias might have limited the discovery of significant decreases in poisoning outcomes. Investigation of individual poisoning circumstances since the law might elucidate remaining gaps in awareness and proper use of CO alarms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.