Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36471323›Full record

ArticleJournal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine2022

Small regions as key sources of traditional knowledge: a quantitative ethnobotanical survey in the central Balkans.

Pedja Janaćković, Milan Gavrilović, Milica Miletić, Maja Radulović, Stefan Kolašinac, Zora Dajić Stevanović

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Pedja Janaćković *Faculty of Biology, Department of Morphology and Systematics of Plants, University of Belgrade, Studentski Trg 16, 11 000, Belgrade, Serbia. pjanackovic@bio.bg.ac.rs.
Milan Gavrilović *Faculty of Biology, Department of Morphology and Systematics of Plants, University of Belgrade, Studentski Trg 16, 11 000, Belgrade, Serbia.
Milica MiletićFaculty of Biology, Department of Morphology and Systematics of Plants, University of Belgrade, Studentski Trg 16, 11 000, Belgrade, Serbia.
Maja RadulovićFaculty of Biology, Department of Morphology and Systematics of Plants, University of Belgrade, Studentski Trg 16, 11 000, Belgrade, Serbia.
Stefan KolašinacFaculty of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Botany, University of Belgrade, Nemanjina 6, 11 000, Belgrade, Serbia.
Zora Dajić StevanovićFaculty of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Botany, University of Belgrade, Nemanjina 6, 11 000, Belgrade, Serbia.
University of Belgrade · RS

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStarting from the idea that unexplored areas may yield new and different ethnobotanical information, we performed a survey of traditional uses of plants in two neighboring districts situated in east Serbia (Bor and Aleksinac), both lacking in previous ethnobotanical reports, but characterized by an interesting history and culture, together with some specific features. In this study, we hypothesized that such small and specific areas could be of high ethnobotanical importance.

methodsSemi-structured interviews were used with 155 informants. Relative cultural importance (RCI) indices, such as the frequency of citation (FC), relative frequency of citation (RFC), relative importance index (RI), informant consensus factor (ICF-FIC), use value (UV), fidelity level (FL) and Jaccard index (JI), were calculated, and principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) was performed.

resultsIn this study, 2333 use-reports and 114 plants were recorded. Of the 101 medical herbs, 33 are included in the European Pharmacopoeia Edition 8.0. The most frequently used mode of preparation was as an infusion (50.0%), while leaf (44.7%) was the most used plant part. The highest FC and RFC values were recorded for Hypericum perforatum L. (13.1 and 0.2, respectively), while the highest RI was documented for Urtica dioica L. (1.0). ICF and FL indices showed important differences among selected groups of informants. The PCoA showed three homogeneous plant groups. Plants were mostly used for the treatment of digestive (49.1%), circulatory (41.2%) and respiratory system disorders (35.1%). Thirty-seven (32.5%) herbs were used for human nutrition, 14 (12.3%) in veterinary medicine, 17 (14.9%) in rituals and ethnoculture, while 24 (21.0%) for miscellaneous purposes. The highest degree of similarity was determined with studies conducted in close proximity. Four species are new to Balkan ethnobotany. New uses for some well-known plants are highlighted.

conclusionThe study indicated that small and specific areas in the Balkans may be an important reservoir of ethnobotanical knowledge.

Indexed as

EthnobotanyPlants, MedicinalBalkan PeninsulaHumansMedicine, TraditionalPhytotherapySurveys and QuestionnairesCosmetic and craft usesFood plantsMedicinal plantsRitual usesSerbiaVeterinary uses

Identifiers

PMID36471323
PMCPMC9720931
OpenAlexW4310673723

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.