Medicinal plants used for cutaneous wound healing in Uganda; ethnomedicinal reports and pharmacological evidences.

Background: Wounds have become a major health challenge worldwide, presenting marked humanistic and economic burdens such as disabilities and death. Annually, approximately 14 million people suffer from wounds worldwide and 80 % of these occur in developing countries like Uganda. In Uganda, besides many cases of daily wound occurrences, approximately 10 % of surgical procedures become septic wounds and consequently lead to increased morbidity and mortality. Accordingly, several ethnomedicinal studies have identified plants used for wound treatment in different parts of Uganda and the wound healing activities of some plants have been reported. However, at present, these information remain largely separated without an all-inclusive repository containing ethnomedicinal and pharmacological information of the plants used for wound healing in Uganda, thus retarding appropriate evaluation. Therefore, this review focused on extensively exploring the plants used for treating cutaneous wounds in Uganda, along with associated ethnomedicinal information and their globally reported pharmacological potential. Methods: Electronic data bases including Google Scholar, PubMed, and Science Direct were searched using key terms for required information contained in English peer reviewed articles, books, and dissertations. Additionally, correlations between selected parameters were determined with coefficient of determination ( Results: The literature survey revealed that 165 species belonging to 62 families are traditionally used to treat wounds in Uganda. Most of the species belonged to families of Asteraceae (14 %), Fabaceae (10 %), and Euphorbiaceae (7 %). The commonest plant parts used for wound treatment include leaf (48 %), root (22 %), stembark (11 %), and stem (7 %), which are prepared majorly by poultice (34 %), decoction (13 %), as well as powdering (25 %). Fifty-four (33 %) of the plant species have been investigated for their wound healing activities whereas, one hundred eleven (67 %) have not been scientifically investigated for their wound healing effects. Pearson correlation coefficient between the number of wound healing plant families per part used and percent of each plant part used was 0.97, and between the number of wound healing plant families per method of preparation and percent of each method of preparation was 0.95, showing in both strong positively marked relationships. Conclusion: The preliminarily investigated plants with positive wound healing properties require further evaluation to possible final phases, with comprehensive identification of constituent bioactive agents. Additionally, the wound healing potential of the scientifically uninvestigated plants with claimed healing effects needs examination. Subsequently, information regarding efficacy, safety, bioactive principles, and mechanism of action could prove valuable in future development of wound healing therapies.