[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.205.176.107. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
Sign In
Individual Sign In
Create an Account
Institutional Sign In
OpenAthens Shibboleth
[Skip to Content Landing]
Download PDF
Image description not available.
Study population by injury outcome. Fatal residential fires in North Carolina, February 1, 1988, to January 31, 1989.
Table 1.—Characteristics of Persons in Fatal Residential Fires With Multiple Persons Present, North Carolina*
Image description not available.
Table 2.—Risk of Dying in a Fatal Fire by Vulnerability Status, Residential Fires With Multiple Persons Present, North Carolina*
Image description not available.
Table 3.—Risk of Dying in a Fatal Fire by Vulnerability Status, Presence of a Potential Rescuer, and Presence of a Functioning Smoke Detector, Residential Fires With Multiple Persons Present, North Carolina*
Image description not available.
1.
Baker SP, O'Neill B, Ginsburg MJ, Guohua L. The Injury Fact Book.  2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc; 1992.
2.
Federal Emergency Management Agency.  Fire in the United States 1985-1994.  9th ed. Emmitsburg, Md: National Fire Data Center; 1997.
3.
Karter MJ. 1996 U.S. fire loss.  NFPA J.September/October 1997:77-83.
4.
Gulaid JA, Sattin RW, Waxweiler RJ. Deaths from residential fires, 1978-1984.  Mor Mortal Wkly Rep CDC Surveill Summ.1988;37(SS-1):39-45.
5.
Mierley M, Baker SP. Fatal house fires in an urban population.  JAMA.1983;249:1466-1468.
6.
Patetta MJ, Cole TB. A population-based descriptive study of housefire deaths in North Carolina.  Am J Public Health.1990;80:1116-1117.
7.
Ballard JE, Koepsell TD, Rivara FP. Association of smoking and alcohol drinking with residential fire injuries.  Am J Epidemiol.1992;135:26-34.
8.
Clarke FB, Birky MM. Fire safety in dwelling and public buildings.  Bull N Y Acad Med.1981;57:1047-1060.
9.
Runyan CW, Bangdiwala SI, Linzer MA, Sacks JJ, Butts J. Risk factors for fatal residential fires.  N Engl J Med.1992;327:859-863.
10.
Shah BV, Barnwell BG, Bieler GS. SUDAAN User's Manual, Release 7.0.  Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute; 1996.
11.
Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression.  New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 1989.
12.
Rothman KJ. Modern Epidemiology.  Boston, Mass: Little Brown & Co Inc; 1986.
13.
Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Confidence interval estimation of interaction.  Epidemiology.1992;3:452-456.
14.
Gulaid JA, Sacks JJ, Sattin RW. Deaths from residential fires among older people, United States, 1984.  J Am Geriatr Soc.1989;37:331-334.
15.
Barillo DJ, Goode R. Fire fatality study: demographics of fire victims.  Burns.1996;22:85-88.
16.
Howland J, Hingson R. Alcohol as a risk factor for injuries or death due to fires and burns: review of the literature.  Public Health Rep.1987;102:475-483.
17.
Hall JR. A decade of detectors: measuring the effect.  Fire J.September 1985:37-43, 78.
18.
Mallonee S, Istre GR, Rosenberg M.  et al.  Surveillance and prevention of residential-fire injuries.  N Engl J Med.1996;335:27-31.
19.
Ahrens M. U.S. Experience With Smoke Detectors and Other Fire Detectors.  Quincey Park, Mass: National Fire Protection Association; 1997.
20.
Council on Scientific Affairs.  Preventing death and injury from fires with automatic sprinklers and smoke detectors.  JAMA.1987;257:1618-1620.
21.
McLoughlin E, McGuire A. The causes, cost, and prevention of childhood burn injuries.  AJDC.1990;144:677-683.
22.
Baker SP. What keeps the home fires burning?  N Engl J Med.1992;327:887-888.
23.
Rohr KD. U.S. Experience With Sprinklers.  Quincey Park, Mass: National Fire Protection Association; 1997.
Original Contribution
May 27, 1998

Fatal Residential FiresWho Dies and Who Survives?

Author Affiliations

From the Injury Prevention Research Center (Mr Marshall, Drs Runyan and Bangdiwala, and Ms Linzer) and Departments of Epidemiology (Mr Marshall and Dr Runyan), Health Behavior and Health Education (Dr Runyan), Biostatistics (Dr Bangdiwala), and Pathology and Laboratory Medicine (Dr Butts), University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; US Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga (Dr Sacks); and North Carolina Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, Chapel Hill (Dr Butts).

JAMA. 1998;279(20):1633-1637. doi:10.1001/jama.279.20.1633
Context.—

Context.— The United States has one of the highest fire fatality rates in the developed world, and three quarters of these deaths are in residential fires.

Objective.— To compare characteristics of those who die and those who survive in the same residential fire.

Design.— Data on fatal residential fires were collected from the medical examiner and interviews with local fire officials.

Setting.— North Carolina.

Subjects.— Persons in residential fires with at least 1 fatality in a 1-year period.

Main Outcome Measure.— Dying vs surviving a fatal residential fire that occurred with more than 1 person at home.

Results.— Of the 190 decedents, 124 (65%) were male, 78 (41%) were home alone, and 69 (53%) of 130 adults who had blood alcohol measured were intoxicated (blood alcohol content >22 mmol/L [100 mg/dL]). Of the 254 persons present during fires in which more than 1 person was at home, 112 died. Individuals more likely to die (high-vulnerability group) were younger than 5 years or 64 years or older, had a physical or cognitive disability, or were impaired by alcohol or other drugs (risk of death for group, odds ratio [OR], 4.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.29-7.03). The presence of an adult with no physical or cognitive disabilities who was unimpaired by alcohol or other drugs (a potential rescuer) reduced the risk of death in the high-vulnerability group (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.24-0.99) but not the low-vulnerability group. Overall, a functioning smoke detector lowered the risk of death (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.18-0.83).

Conclusions.— Smoke detectors were equally effective in both low- and high-vulnerability populations. The high-vulnerability group was more likely to survive if, in addition to a smoke detector, a potential rescuer was present. Further research should seek to identify prompts that facilitate speedy egress from a burning structure and that can be incorporated into residential fire alarm systems.

THE UNITED STATES has one of the highest fire fatality rates in the developed world, accounting for 2.3 deaths per 100000 population.1,2 In 1996 there were an estimated 417000 residential fires in the United States, resulting in 4035 deaths, almost 19000 injuries, and nearly $5 billion in property loss.3 There are striking regional differences in fire fatality within the United States, with the southeastern states experiencing the highest rates.1,2,4 Most fatalities (75%) are associated with residential fires.2 At high risk of fire death are the very young, older adults,2,46 and those impaired by alcohol.6,7 These groups are more vulnerable to fire fatality because they lack the capacity to take "mature, independent escape action."8

We previously reported a case-control analysis of environmental and household risk factors for fatal residential fires.9 That report compared fires with 1 or more deaths with fires with no deaths. This study focuses solely on the fatal fires. We delineated the personal characteristics that distinguish those who die in from those who survive fires severe enough to result in at least 1 death.

METHODS
Study Criteria

This study included all fatal residential fires that occurred in North Carolina between February 1, 1988, and January 31, 1989. Fatalities from residential fires were identified at the North Carolina Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. North Carolina law requires that all injury deaths be investigated and certified by a county medical examiner, who must file a report with the chief medical examiner's office. Only those deaths occurring within 30 days from injuries received in a fire in a residential dwelling were included.

A residence was defined as a private dwelling and adjoining structures. This included the garage, porch, and deck. Deaths of firefighters, fires determined to be arson, fires that started when no one was home, and fires in institutions and military housing were excluded. Fires in residential apartments and those started in a chimney were included.

Data Collection

Medical examiner files include death certificates, narrative reports from the local medical examiner, toxicologic investigation results, autopsy reports, and newspaper clippings. The medical examiner files were abstracted weekly, and the North Carolina chief medical examiner, a forensic pathologist, reviewed each death and excluded any considered not due to the fire. The local fire official in charge of responding to each fire was interviewed by telephone as soon as possible after the fire. Information was collected on the nature of the fire, the dwelling that burned, the fire department response, and the characteristics of all persons present in the residence at the time of the fire. The officials were permitted to consult standard trip reports in answering our questions. When fire officials could not provide complete information, we used data abstracted from the medical examiner files or from interviews with alternate informants, such as fire survivors.

Data were obtained on all fatal residential fires during the study period except 1 that occurred in a suspected crack house and involved 1 fatality and 10 survivors. Fire department officials were unable to provide further details about the occupants of this residence.

Analysis Methods

The main outcome measure was the fatality rate, defined as the number of deaths divided by the total number of persons present in the dwelling when the fire started. Bivariate analyses of the fatality rate were conducted and logistic regression was used to model the odds of fatal injury while adjusting for a range of covariates, including household, fire, and fire-response variables. Bivariate and regression analyses were restricted to fires with multiple persons home. SUDAAN software was used to adjust the SEs of the logistic regression coefficients for the clustering effect due to multiple persons being in the same fire.10

The initial regression model included the main study variables: age, sex, race, physical or cognitive disability, and alcohol or other drug impairment. The following household, fire, and fire-response variables were then added: presence of a working smoke detector, whether the residence was a mobile home, number of exits from the residence (≤2 vs >2), number of stories (1 vs >1), age of residence (≥20 vs <20 years), distance to nearest neighbor (≥ 90 vs <90 m), rental vs nonrental residence, mode of fire report (telephone vs other), presence of a 911 system in the area, type of fire department (all volunteer, some volunteer, or all paid), daytime fire (6:00 AM-9:59 PM) vs nighttime fire (10:00 PM-5:59 AM), weekend (6:00 PM Friday-5:59 AM Monday) vs weekday fire, ignition source (heating, smoking, or other), the season in which the fire occurred, and the room of origin of the fire (living room, bedroom, kitchen).9

Variables representing whether the subject was in the same room as the fire when the fire started, the number of other persons vulnerable to fire fatality present in the household at the time of the fire (defined as being <5 or >64 years old, having a physical or cognitive disability, or being impaired by alcohol or other drugs), and the number of other persons present who were potential rescuers (defined as aged 18-64 years with no physical or cognitive disability and unimpaired by alcohol or other drugs) were also included. The final step was to remove those variables whose exclusion had minimal effect on the regression coefficients of the main study variables. The resulting model provided an adequate fit to the data (lack-of-fit statistic, 7.37; df, 8; P=.50).11 Interactions in the data were assessed on the basis of departure from additivity of effects.12,13

RESULTS

During the 12-month study period, 155 fatal fires occurred in private residences with 332 persons present at these residences when the fire started. One hundred ninety (57%) of these persons died. Fire department officials reported that 60 (18%) were injured and/or hospitalized, and 82 (25%) sustained no reported injuries. These figures represent a rate of 6.6 fires per 100000 North Carolina households and a mortality rate of 3.0 per 100000 population.

In 50% (78/155) of the fires only 1 person was home. These fires, accounting for 41% (78/190) of all deaths, are referred to as "one person home alone" (OPHA) fires (Figure 1). Fires in which more than 1 person was home at the time of the fire are referred to as "multiple persons home" (MPH) fires. Forty-four percent (112/254) of the subjects in the MPH fires died, and 42% (60/142) of the MPH survivors sustained a nonfatal injury. In 8% (12/155) of residential fires, more than 1 person was home and all occupants perished.

A smoke detector was present in 31 households (25%). Data on the presence or absence of a smoke detector could not be obtained for 32 households. Of the 31 households with a smoke detector installed, only 16 had detectors that were operational (8 of these were in OPHA fires). Eleven detectors were confirmed as nonoperational, and in 4 cases functional status was unknown.

Description of Decedents

Sixty-five percent of the 190 decedents were male and 51% were white. The mean age was 39 years, with 17% of the decedents younger than 5 years (n=32) and 21% older than 64 years (n=39). The OPHA and MPH decedents were different in 2 important respects: the decedents in the OPHA fires were more likely to be adult (99%) and male (81%) than those who died in MPH fires (58% and 54%, respectively).

The most common mechanism of death was carbon monoxide poisoning (65%), followed by inhalation of smoke or gases other than, or in addition to, carbon monoxide (16%). Most deaths (93%) occurred within 24 hours of the fire. Of the 13 deaths that occurred more than 24 hours after the fire, 11 were the result of either burns or complications from burns.

In 153 cases, fire department officials identified what the decedent was doing at the time of injury (81%). Of these, 47% were attempting to escape and 31% were sleeping. All the decedents were inside the dwelling when the fire started, and 45% were in the same room as the fire. Six decedents escaped from the building during the fire but were fatally injured after they reentered the structure.

For those 18 years and older, the medical examiner determined the blood alcohol content (BAC) in 92% of decedents. In more than half the cases (53% [69/130]), the BAC exceeded 22 mmol/L (100 mg/dL). The investigating medical examiner reported that 37 decedents had a history of alcoholism.

In the judgment of firefighters at the scene, 16% (30) of the decedents had some form of preexisting physical or cognitive impairment, such as a hearing or vision impairment, mental retardation, a disabling illness, or senility. Of these, 13 were identified as bedridden or otherwise physically disabled.

Of the 48 juvenile fatalities (<18 years), 14 died in 9 fires without adult supervision. Seven died in 4 fires in which 1 or more of the surviving adults had been judged as being impaired by alcohol or other drugs.

Comparison of Decedents and Survivors: Bivariate Analyses

Because OPHA fires, by definition, include only decedents, the comparison of decedents and survivors was restricted to the 254 people in MPH fires for both the bivariate and regression analyses. Persons having a physical or cognitive disability, and those reportedly impaired by alcohol or other drugs, experienced elevated rates of fatality (Table 1). Age was also an important predictor, with the old (>64 years) and the young (<5 years) being the most likely to die as a result of the fire. Based on these and previous results,9 a "highly vulnerable" group was defined, comprising all subjects younger than 5 years, older than 64 years, having a physical or cognitive disability, or being impaired by alcohol or other drugs. The presence of 1 or more of these risk factors raised the fatality rate from 31% to 54%.

Two household-level characteristics were of particular interest: the presence of other people who might function as potential rescuers of vulnerable persons and the presence of a smoke detector. We defined potential rescuers as persons, other than the study subject, who were present when the fire started, who were between the ages of 18 and 64 years, who had no physical or cognitive disabilities, and who were not impaired by alcohol or other drugs at the time of the fire. When a potential rescuer was present, the fatality rate dropped from 49% to 39%. The relatively small number of MPH decedents (n=25) in fires with a functional smoke detector experienced a lower fatality rate (36%) than those without a smoke detector (44%).

Comparison of Decedents and Survivors: Regression Models

Logistic regression was used to identify important risk factors for death while controlling for a range of covariates. Thirty-one persons involved in fires were not considered for the model because the severity of the fire made it difficult for fire officials to determine whether a smoke detector was present or, if present in the residence, whether it was functional, leaving 223 subjects for analysis. The coefficients from the logistic regression models represent log odds ratios (ORs) for dying in vs surviving a residential fire in which at least 1 death occurred. Odds ratios above 1 indicate that the risk of death is increased in the presence of that factor, while ORs below 1 indicate a protective effect.

Regression results confirmed the relationships observed in the bivariate analyses (Table 1). Following covariate adjustment, persons meeting the "high-vulnerability" definition were 4 times as likely to suffer a fatal injury. Those younger than 5 years were 6 times more likely than persons between the ages of 18 and 64 years to suffer a fatal injury.

The presence of 1 or more potential rescuers in the residence tended to be protective of fatality, with an unadjusted OR of 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-0.97) and an adjusted OR of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.31-1.21). The presence of a functioning smoke detector also appears to lower the risk of death. The unadjusted OR was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.35-1.45) and the adjusted OR was 0.39 (95% CI, 0.18-0.83). The relatively small number of subjects in households with functional smoke detectors means that these estimates have to be interpreted with some degree of caution.

The interaction between vulnerability and potential rescuer was investigated (Table 2). For those classified as less vulnerable, the presence of a potential rescuer reduced the risk of death by a modest 19% (adjusted OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.28-2.31). The risk of death for the vulnerable group was reduced by 51% (adjusted OR, 0.49 [2.36/4.86]; 95% CI, 0.24-0.99).

The protective effect of having a smoke detector was similar for both the less vulnerable (adjusted OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.05-1.71) and the vulnerable groups (adjusted OR, 0.33 [1.32/3.98]; 95% CI, 0.13-0.85). There was little or no evidence of interaction between vulnerability and smoke detector presence (Table 2).

Finally, in examining the 3-way interaction among smoke detector, potential rescuer, and vulnerability, it was found that the subjects with the greatest risk of death were those in the vulnerable group with neither a potential rescuer nor a smoke detector (Table 3). The subjects with the least risk, on the other hand, were those in the less vulnerable group who were in fires with both a potential rescuer and a smoke detector present. Though the presence of either a potential rescuer or a smoke detector during the fire appeared to lower the risk of fatality substantially, the presence of both a potential rescuer and a smoke detector reduced it even further.

COMMENT

This study confirmed earlier evidence that readily identifiable personal characteristics are important determinants of survival in residential fires. Older and younger persons,35,14,15 persons with disabilities, and those impaired by alcohol or other drugs6,7,16 were observed to be at a higher risk of death in fatal MPH fires. In addition, our findings suggest that the increased fatality risk in these populations can, to some extent, be mitigated through the presence of an operational smoke detector and an able-bodied adult unimpaired by alcohol or other drugs at the time of the fire.

Strengths and Limitations

This study is based on a select group of individuals—those involved in a fire in which at least 1 person died. The analyses presented here, therefore, enable us to make inferences about who will die and who will survive a residential fire, given that someone will die. It does not necessarily follow that the same relationships will apply in fires in which no fatality occurs. Nevertheless, a complementary analysis of these data, which compared fatal with nonfatal fires, identified a similar group of risk factors (age, disability, alcohol or other drug impairment, and absence of a smoke detector).9

A limitation of this study is the small number of households equipped with functioning smoke detectors. This problem resulted in some wide CIs in the interaction analyses. Furthermore, smoke detector status was not available for some fires, resulting in the deletion of 31 subjects from our regression analyses. Fires with missing smoke detector data were more likely to have resulted in a high level of destruction to the building and had a higher fatality rate (52% vs 43% in the fires with smoke detector data present). We investigated the potential for bias associated with missing data. If all the missing data came from households that, in reality, had smoke detectors that operated correctly, then the adjusted OR for smoke detectors would be 0.32 (95% CI, 0.15-0.68). If the other extreme were true, and all the missing data represented households without functional smoke detectors, then the adjusted OR would be 0.39 (95% CI, 0.18-0.83). Thus, it is unlikely that a missing data bias resulted in substantial overestimation or underestimation of the effectiveness of the smoke detectors. Point and interval estimates for our main study variables under each of these 2 scenarios were similar to the results presented in this study.

Because smoke detector status is a household-level rather than an individual-level characteristic, a possible association between household size and smoke detector status could have biased the results. An analysis with weights inversely proportional to household size yielded smoke detector estimates that were similar to those from the unweighted analysis reported above (unadjusted OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.33-1.50; adjusted OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.15-0.74), indicating that this was an unlikely source of bias.

The vast majority of the data used in this study was obtained by interviewing fire officials who attended the fires. For example, of the 4460 data points entered into the regression analyses (20 variables on 223 subjects), 98% were obtained from the fire department interview. The first priority of the fire department, however, is the evacuation of endangered persons and containment of the fire, not the assessment of the personal characteristics of the decedents and survivors. The assessment of such characteristics may be problematic in an emergency setting and consequently they could have been underreported to our telephone interviewers, potentially resulting in some misclassification bias.

For this reason, the effect of misclassification of vulnerability status was investigated in a sensitivity analysis, under the working assumption that the other variables were measured without error. If the misclassification was nondifferential (ie, identical for decedents and survivors), and the sensitivity and/or specificity of vulnerability status was 80% or better, then our finding of an OR of 4.06 may have underestimated the corrected OR, which ranged up to 13.05. If the misclassification was differential, and the sensitivity and/or specificity was 80% or better, the corrected OR ranged from 2.79 to 26.25. Only in cases of severe differential misclassification did the corrected OR approach the null (eg, a specificity of 50% for decedents and 100% for survivors, with 90% sensitivity for both, yielded a corrected OR of 1.44). This suggests that the findings with regard to vulnerability status are reasonably robust, and that the most probable effect of any misclassification bias would have been to err on the conservative side by underestimating the increased risk in the high-vulnerability group.

Relevance of Findings

Our finding that smoke detectors reduce the risk of death in a fatal fire by about 60% contributes to a mounting body of scientific evidence for the effectiveness of these relatively inexpensive devices.2,9,1719 Some authors have suggested, however, that smoke detectors and other early warning devices may not be effective in populations that have difficulty responding to an alarm in a timely and independent manner, such as children, older adults, persons with disabilities, or those impaired by alcohol or other drugs.6,20 The data from this study indicate that the reduction in fatality risk associated with the presence of a smoke detector was similar for both the vulnerable and less vulnerable groups. This suggests that smoke detectors may be as effective in vulnerable populations as they are in the general population. We caution that our smoke detector findings are based on a small number of subjects. Furthermore, fatalities in MPH fires are a highly select group within the wider population of fire injuries. Further research is needed to investigate whether the observed relationships hold for nonfatal injuries and OPHA fires.

Although the presence of an operational smoke detector reduced the fatality risk, the presence of a potential rescuer in conjunction with a smoke detector tended to lower the risk even further. This is not surprising, in that smoke detectors are merely an early warning device, whereas potential rescuers can be proactive in assisting with the egress of the other occupants from burning structures. Consideration should be given to enhancing current alarm systems, such as smoke detectors, with additional egress prompts that might mimic, to some extent, the effect of having a potential rescuer present. For example, the alarm could be modified to alternate the siren noise with prerecorded vocal messages providing exit directives, or could incorporate visual cues such as a flashing light or directional arrows. Laboratory-based testing of various cues and prompts under simulated fire conditions is required to identify and test an appropriate set of egress stimuli.

Smoke detectors have been widely adopted by the public and 93% of US households have 1 or more smoke detectors installed.19 As many as 30% to 45% of these, however, are nonoperational, largely due to nonreplacement or removal of batteries.18,19 Direct connection of the detector to the household's electrical supply is one mechanism for ensuring an uninterrupted power source. In addition, detectors with extended-life (up to 10 years) batteries are now available.

Sprinkler systems also afford considerable promise for the prevention of fire fatality,2022 but are significantly more expensive to install and have not been well studied in residential settings. Tests in full-scale simulated fires and surveillance data from the National Fire Incident Reporting System indicate, however, that they can be expected to significantly mitigate the risk of fatality in residential fires.20,23

Conclusions

This study found that smoke detectors were effective in reducing the risk of death in fatal fires in which multiple persons were present. In addition, they appear to perform equally well in both low- and high-vulnerability populations. The presence of a potential rescuer further enhanced the chance of survival for those most at risk of fire death. Further research is needed to identify prompts and cues that facilitate a speedy egress from the burning structure and can be incorporated into smoke detectors and other residential fire alarm systems.

References
1.
Baker SP, O'Neill B, Ginsburg MJ, Guohua L. The Injury Fact Book.  2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc; 1992.
2.
Federal Emergency Management Agency.  Fire in the United States 1985-1994.  9th ed. Emmitsburg, Md: National Fire Data Center; 1997.
3.
Karter MJ. 1996 U.S. fire loss.  NFPA J.September/October 1997:77-83.
4.
Gulaid JA, Sattin RW, Waxweiler RJ. Deaths from residential fires, 1978-1984.  Mor Mortal Wkly Rep CDC Surveill Summ.1988;37(SS-1):39-45.
5.
Mierley M, Baker SP. Fatal house fires in an urban population.  JAMA.1983;249:1466-1468.
6.
Patetta MJ, Cole TB. A population-based descriptive study of housefire deaths in North Carolina.  Am J Public Health.1990;80:1116-1117.
7.
Ballard JE, Koepsell TD, Rivara FP. Association of smoking and alcohol drinking with residential fire injuries.  Am J Epidemiol.1992;135:26-34.
8.
Clarke FB, Birky MM. Fire safety in dwelling and public buildings.  Bull N Y Acad Med.1981;57:1047-1060.
9.
Runyan CW, Bangdiwala SI, Linzer MA, Sacks JJ, Butts J. Risk factors for fatal residential fires.  N Engl J Med.1992;327:859-863.
10.
Shah BV, Barnwell BG, Bieler GS. SUDAAN User's Manual, Release 7.0.  Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute; 1996.
11.
Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression.  New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 1989.
12.
Rothman KJ. Modern Epidemiology.  Boston, Mass: Little Brown & Co Inc; 1986.
13.
Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Confidence interval estimation of interaction.  Epidemiology.1992;3:452-456.
14.
Gulaid JA, Sacks JJ, Sattin RW. Deaths from residential fires among older people, United States, 1984.  J Am Geriatr Soc.1989;37:331-334.
15.
Barillo DJ, Goode R. Fire fatality study: demographics of fire victims.  Burns.1996;22:85-88.
16.
Howland J, Hingson R. Alcohol as a risk factor for injuries or death due to fires and burns: review of the literature.  Public Health Rep.1987;102:475-483.
17.
Hall JR. A decade of detectors: measuring the effect.  Fire J.September 1985:37-43, 78.
18.
Mallonee S, Istre GR, Rosenberg M.  et al.  Surveillance and prevention of residential-fire injuries.  N Engl J Med.1996;335:27-31.
19.
Ahrens M. U.S. Experience With Smoke Detectors and Other Fire Detectors.  Quincey Park, Mass: National Fire Protection Association; 1997.
20.
Council on Scientific Affairs.  Preventing death and injury from fires with automatic sprinklers and smoke detectors.  JAMA.1987;257:1618-1620.
21.
McLoughlin E, McGuire A. The causes, cost, and prevention of childhood burn injuries.  AJDC.1990;144:677-683.
22.
Baker SP. What keeps the home fires burning?  N Engl J Med.1992;327:887-888.
23.
Rohr KD. U.S. Experience With Sprinklers.  Quincey Park, Mass: National Fire Protection Association; 1997.
×