Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32138749›Full record

ArticleJournal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine2020

Quantitative ethnopharmacological documentation and molecular confirmation of medicinal plants used by the Manobo tribe of Agusan del Sur, Philippines.

Mark Lloyd G Dapar, Grecebio Jonathan D Alejandro, Ulrich Meve, Sigrid Liede-Schumann

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
16.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 109 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. In-vitro ACE-1 Inhibitory Activity ofActa medica Philippina · 2026
    Article
  2. Multi-Target Neuroprotective Effects of Flavonoid-RichInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Mark Lloyd G DaparThe Graduate School and Research Center for the Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Santo Tomas, España Boulevard, 1015, Manila, Philippines. marklloyd.dapar.gs@ust.edu.ph.
Grecebio Jonathan D AlejandroThe Graduate School and Research Center for the Natural and Applied Sciences, University of Santo Tomas, España Boulevard, 1015, Manila, Philippines.
Ulrich MeveDepartment of Plant Systematics, University of Bayreuth, Universitätsstr. 30, 95440, Bayreuth, Germany.
Sigrid Liede-SchumannDepartment of Plant Systematics, University of Bayreuth, Universitätsstr. 30, 95440, Bayreuth, Germany.
University of Bayreuth · DEUniversity of Santo Tomas · PH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Philippines is renowned as one of the species-rich countries and culturally megadiverse in ethnicity around the globe. However, ethnopharmacological studies in the Philippines are still limited especially in the most numerous ethnic tribal populations in the southern part of the archipelago. This present study aims to document the traditional practices, medicinal plant use, and knowledge; to determine the relative importance, consensus, and the extent of all medicinal plants used; and to integrate molecular confirmation of uncertain species used by the Agusan Manobo in Mindanao, Philippines.

methodsQuantitative ethnopharmacological data were obtained using semi-structured interviews, group discussions, field observations, and guided field walks with a total of 335 key informants comprising of tribal chieftains, traditional healers, community elders, and Manobo members of the community with their medicinal plant knowledge. The use-report (UR), use categories (UC), use value (UV), cultural importance value (CIV), and use diversity (UD) were quantified and correlated. Other indices using fidelity level (FL), informant consensus factors (ICF), and Jaccard's similarity index (JI) were also calculated. The key informants' medicinal plant use knowledge and practices were statistically analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics.

resultsThis study enumerated the ethnopharmacological use of 122 medicinal plant species, distributed among 108 genera and belonging to 51 families classified in 16 use categories. Integrative molecular approach confirmed 24 species with confusing species identity using multiple universal markers (ITS, matK, psbA-trnH, and trnL-F). There was strong agreement among the key informants regarding ethnopharmacological uses of plants, with ICF values ranging from 0.97 to 0.99, with the highest number of species (88) being used for the treatment of abnormal signs and symptoms (ASS). Seven species were reported with maximum fidelity level (100%) in seven use categories. The correlations of the five variables (UR, UC, UV, CIV, and UD) were significant (r

conclusionDocumenting such traditional knowledge of medicinal plants and practices is highly essential for future management and conservation strategies of these plant genetic resources. This ethnopharmacological study will serve as a future reference not only for more systematic ethnopharmacological documentation but also for further pharmacological studies and drug discovery to improve public healthcare worldwide.

Indexed as

EthnopharmacologyKnowledgeMedicine, TraditionalAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleGenetic MarkersHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhilippinesPhytotherapyPlant PreparationsPlants, MedicinalGenetic MarkersPlant PreparationsAgusan ManoboCultural importance valueEthnopharmacologyMindanaoMolecular confirmationUse diversity

Identifiers

PMID32138749
PMCPMC7227330
OpenAlexW3012352106

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.