Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40853912›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2025

Current approaches in livestock geotagging: Assessing available technologies and applications to public health research in Kenya and Malawi.

Julianne Meisner, Boku Bodha, J Russell Stothard, Alexandra Juhasz, Peter Makaula, Janelisa Musaya, Isaac Ngere, John Gachohi, M Kariuki Njenga, Dismas Oketch and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Julianne MeisnerDepartment of Global Health, Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7477-6598
Boku BodhaDepartment of Veterinary Services, Marsabit, Kenya.
J Russell StothardTropical Disease Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Alexandra JuhaszTropical Disease Biology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Peter MakaulaNeglected Tropical Diseases, Malawi Liverpool Wellcome (MLW) Research Programme, Blantyre, Malawi.
Janelisa MusayaNeglected Tropical Diseases, Malawi Liverpool Wellcome (MLW) Research Programme, Blantyre, Malawi.
Isaac NgereWashington State University Global Health - Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya.
John GachohiWashington State University Global Health - Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9854-7490
M Kariuki NjengaWashington State University Global Health - Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya.
Dismas OketchWashington State University Global Health - Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4601-1859
Waiguru MuriukiWashington State University Global Health - Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8978-7828
Eric OsoroWashington State University Global Health - Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya.

Funding

Zoonotic and Emerging Infectious Diseases Training ProgramD43TW011519 · FIC · WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY · PI Walter Godfrey Jaoko, Thumbi Mwangi · 2020 to 2026
$1.2M
FIC NIH HHS D43 TW011519
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Livestock geotrackers are increasingly used for public health research, particularly within the field of One Health, to draw inference on pathogen exposure and human risk from livestock movement data. There are many dozens, if not hundreds, of devices available to researchers, including devices purpose built for livestock such as collars, ear tags, rumen boluses (placed in the forestomach of a ruminant), or other formats; those intended for wildlife but suitable for livestock; and devices intended for other geotracking applications which can be retrofitted for livestock. To assist other researchers in navigating the wealth of available options, we present here our experiences with six devices-four intended for livestock, one intended for wildlife, and one intended for humans- applied to cattle, camels, sheep, goats, and donkeys in rural locations in Eastern and Southern Africa. We summarize the technical specifications and features of these devices, our deployment strategies, and our experiences in terms of battery life, durability, data quality and retrieval, and acceptability by livestock owners. We found that both FindMy and CatLog2 performed well and were cost-effective at under $250 per unit. While FindMy is more costly than CatLog2, this device transmits signal, allowing users to track device locations from an app or browser. Our results support other One Health researchers weighing the hundreds of options for livestock geotracking available to them, considering their project's context, objectives, and available resources.

Identifiers

PMID40853912
PMCPMC12377614

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.