Equipment graded for the field, not the catalog

We never quote a price, never name a product as an endorsement, and never reproduce a manufacturer claim as established fact. Each assessment is built from three evidence streams — WHO Performance, Quality and Safety prequalification data, documented field-failure analysis, and the operational realities of low-resource settings — and the verdict is framed as editorial judgement. A catalogue tells you what is for sale; a guide tells you what survives the journey, holds calibration in heat, and can be run by the people who actually have to run it.

Because PQS is the closest thing field equipment has to a verified, independent baseline. It tests against a specification rather than a marketing sheet, and for cold-chain and immunisation hardware in particular it is the reference most procurement officers and donors already recognise. We start from the PQS listing, then read the field-failure record against it — because a device can pass prequalification and still fail in deployment for reasons the test bench never sees, like a compressor that dies in 45°C ambient or a cartridge the local supply chain cannot resource.

We tie assessments to published, datable evidence — WHO and MSF guidance, peer-reviewed field studies, and outbreak after-action reports — and revise when the evidence moves. Where a guide cites a mortality rate, a Sphere ratio, or a vaccine-efficacy figure, it is drawn from the published source, not from a vendor. Field data that contradicts a published assessment is exactly the correction we ask practitioners to send.

Start with the pillar closest to your programme's binding constraint. Cold Chain if a temperature-sensitive biologic is losing potency before it reaches a child; Field Diagnostics if a diagnosis has to hold without a reference laboratory; Outbreak Response if a high-consequence pathogen needs containment under improvised conditions; WASH Infrastructure if contaminated water is turning a clinic into a transmission node. Each pillar page links down to the individual equipment guides beneath it.

Yes — that is the point of the platform. Logisticians, procurement officers, and field epidemiologists are invited to send documented failure cases, deployment data, and corrections to the editorial desk. The guides are written to be cited, contested, and revised; a well-evidenced contradiction improves the assessment for everyone who reads it next.