ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Evaluation of Annual and Comprehensive Maintenance Contracts for Reducing Medical Equipment Downtime in a Tertiary Care Hospital: An Observational Audit.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedical equipment availability is essential for safe, continuous, and efficient care delivery in tertiary care hospitals. Downtime of diagnostic, operative, monitoring, and life-support equipment can disrupt clinical services, delay procedures, and compromise patient safety. Maintenance models such as Annual Maintenance Contracts (AMC), Comprehensive Maintenance Contracts (CMC), warranty coverage, and in-house repair systems differ in scope, cost predictability, and risk protection.
objectiveThis study aimed to comparatively evaluate maintenance-contract coverage and equipment functionality patterns associated with AMC, CMC, warranty, and no active contract status in a tertiary care hospital. It also assessed departmental vulnerability and maintenance gaps to support risk-based planning and clinical service continuity. METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional observational audit was conducted using biomedical equipment inventory records from selected clinical and diagnostic departments. Equipment entries were assessed for department, contract status, warranty status, and functional condition. Contract coverage was categorised as protected, partially protected, or unprotected, and descriptive analysis was used to identify departmental maintenance gaps and non-functional equipment clusters.
resultsThe audit demonstrated that the absence of active maintenance coverage was associated with greater vulnerability to equipment non-functionality, particularly among high-value and clinically critical devices. CMC offered broader protection through preventive service, corrective repair, and spare-part inclusion.
conclusionRisk-based maintenance planning is required, with CMC prioritised for critical equipment and structured AMC or in-house systems used for lower-risk assets.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.