SynthesisPharmaceutical biology2024
A comprehensive review of antimalarial medicinal plants used by Tanzanians.
Synthesis in Pharmaceutical biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Ethnomedicinal Evidence for Medicinal Plants of the Asteraceae Family Used by Tanzanians to Treat Various Ailments: A Review.BioMed research international · 2026Pooled it
- Ethnomedicinal Practices of the Fabaceae Family in Tanzania: A Systematic Review.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2026Pooled it
- Ethnobotanical Evidence of Medicinal Plants Used for Peptic Ulcers in Tanzania: A Systematic Review.Scientifica · 2026Review
- Unveiling the Phytochemical Profile and Anti-Cancer Potential ofFood science & nutrition · 2025Article
- Combined effect of methanolic extracts ofParasite epidemiology and control · 2025Article
- Antiasthmatic Medicinal Plants of Tanzania: An Ethnomedicinal and Ethnopharmacological Review.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextTanzania has rich medicinal plant (MP) resources, and most rural inhabitants rely on traditional healing practices for their primary healthcare needs. However, available research evidence on antimalarial MPs is highly fragmented in the country.
objectiveThis systematic review compiles ethnomedicinal research evidence on MPs used by Tanzanians as antimalarials. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic web search was conducted using various electronic databases and grey materials to gather relevant information on antimalarial MPs utilized by Tanzanians. The review was per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The data were collected from 25 articles, and MS Excel software was used to analyse relevant ethnobotanical information using descriptive statistics.
resultsA total of 227 MPs belonging to 67 botanical families and 180 genera were identified. Fabaceae (15.9%) is the most frequently utilized family. The ethnobotanical recipes analysis indicated leaves (40%) and trees (44%) are the preferred MPs part and life form, respectively. Decoctions (67%) are the dominant preparation method of remedies. Of the recorded MPs, 25.9% have been scientifically investigated for antimalarial activities with positive results. However, 74.1% of MPs have no scientific records on antimalarial activities, but they could be potential sources of remedies.
conclusionsThe study discloses a wealth of antimalarial MPs possessed by Tanzanians and suggests a need for research to authenticate the healing potential of antimalarial compounds from the unstudied MPs. Additionally, it indicates that some of the presented MPs are potential sources for developing safe, effective and affordable antimalarial drugs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.