A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Smoke alarms by type and battery life in rural households: a randomized controlled trial. | LitMetric

Smoke alarms by type and battery life in rural households: a randomized controlled trial.

Am J Prev Med

Injury Prevention Research Center, Department of Community and Behavioral Health, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242, USA.

Published: July 2008

Background: Although the use of smoke alarms is widely recommended, little guidance is available on the types of alarms and batteries that function best. This study examined smoke alarm and battery function 12 months after installation in rural residential households.

Methods: An RCT, involving the installation of either a photoelectric or ionizing smoke alarm with either a lithium or carbon-zinc battery, was conducted in 643 rural Iowa households in July 2003. The functionality of each installed smoke alarm was tested 12 months later. Generalized estimating equations were used to model the effects of alarm type and battery type on alarm function and false alarms 12 months after installation.

Results: Of 643 study homes, 98.8% had at least one functioning alarm, and 81.5% had all alarms functioning 12 months after installation. No difference was observed in alarm function between photoelectric alarms and ionizing alarms 12 months after installation (OR=1.30, 95% CI=0.88, 1.92). However, photoelectric alarms had significantly lower odds of false alarms than ionizing alarms. Alarms with lithium batteries had 91% higher odds of functioning than those with carbon-zinc batteries. The main reasons for nonfunctioning included a missing battery (30.7%); a missing alarm (28%); and a disconnected battery (11.3%).

Conclusions: Although lithium batteries and photoelectric alarms are more expensive than their counterparts, the financial investment might be worthwhile in terms of overall performance.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.03.020DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

smoke alarm
12
months installation
12
photoelectric alarms
12
alarms
11
smoke alarms
8
type battery
8
alarm
8
alarm function
8
false alarms
8
alarms months
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!