ReviewJournal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine2025
Review and cross-cultural analysis of medicinal plants traditionally used in Mauritania.
Review in Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From the margins to the core: village and community scientists should increasingly shape the future of ethnobiology and ethnoecology.Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine · 2026Article
- Quantitative ethnobotany and evidence-based analysis of antidiabetic medicinal plants used in Biswanath district, Assam, India.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMauritania has the most detailed and diverse knowledge on traditional plant remedies of medicinal plant use, despite its comparatively limited native flora due to its low population density and severe desert climate. However, the country is at the crossroads of Sub-Saharan African and Arabo-Berber cultures. Despite this, the country's ethnobotanical expertise is severely under documented.
methodsThe study was conducted through an extensive review of ethnobotanical and ethnopharmacological studies, scientific reports, and historical records related to the traditional use of medicinal plants in Mauritania. Data were collected from scientific databases includingGoogle Scholar, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, and Medline, as well as from dissertations, theses, ethnobotanical books, and local folklore records. The search targeted studies published between January 1950 and January 2025, using specific keywords and Boolean operators to ensure comprehensive coverage of the topic. Additional references were identified by examining the bibliographies of selected articles.
resultsThe first attempt to compile a traditional herbal pharmacopoeia for Mauritania is presented.According to the sources, a total of 133 medicinal and aromatic plants; these plants are used to treat 17 categories of diseases, with the majority addressing digestive group.These plants are used to treat 17 categories of diseases, with the majority addressing digestive disorders (55 plant species) and dermatological disorders (20 species). Notably, the study emphasises apparentcultural differences: the Moors have the best medical knowledge, while the Pulaar, Wolof, and Soninke have distinct ethnobotanical practices that haven't been widely studied.
conclusionThis review aims to document, in a single work, the medical ethnobotanical traditions of Mauritania, underscoring the country's medicinal flora and its potential for future pharmacological studies. Targeted field investigations are needed to properly capture the diversity and practical usefulness of traditional plant knowledge. The study underlines also significant gaps in the field ethnobotanical documentation, particularly among certain ethnic groups.
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.