ArticleScientific reports2025
Ethnobotanical study of medicinal plants in Meketewa District, northwestern Ethiopia.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Ethnobotanical study of wild edible plants in Pa Tio District, Yasothon Province, Thailand.Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine · 2026Article
- Ethnobotanical study of medicinal plants used by indigenous communities in Sheikh District, Somaliland.Journal of ethnobiology and ethnomedicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Traditional medicinal plants remain vital healthcare resources for rural communities, particularly in areas with limited access to modern medical services. This study documents and quantitatively analyzes the ethnobotanical use of medicinal plants in Meketewa District, northwestern Ethiopia. Ethnobotanical data were collected from 360 informants (20 key informants and 340 general informants) across five kebeles (Sub-Districts) representing different agroecological zones. Data were analyzed using preference ranking, direct matrix ranking (DMR), informant consensus factor (ICF), fidelity level (FL), Jaccard similarity index (JSI), Rahman's similarity index (RSI), t-tests, and one-way ANOVA. The distribution of indigenous medicinal plant knowledge was significantly influenced by agroecology and socio-demographic factors, including age, gender, education, and knowledge experience. A total of 76 medicinal plant species belonging to 46 families were documented, with Fabaceae as the dominant family (7.9%) and herbs as the most common growth form (38.16%). Most species were used for human ailments (63.2%), while 9.2% were used for livestock and 27.6% for both. Natural forests were the primary source of medicinal plants (61.84%). Crushing was the dominant preparation method (38.4%), and oral administration was the most common route (47.7%). The use of additives, antidotes, and localized dosage systems reflects advanced therapeutic knowledge. Rhamnus prinoides was the most preferred species for treating human tonsillitis, whereas Euphorbia abyssinica was widely used for livestock swelling. High ICF values (up to 0.92) indicated strong informant agreement, while JSI (2.29-45.19%) and RSI (0.00-16.67%) reflected largely localized ethnomedicinal knowledge; similarly, high fidelity levels for Asparagus africanus var. puberulus (83.3%), Rhamnus prinoides (75%), and Cucumis ficifolius and Euphorbia abyssinica (73.3%) underscore strong cultural consensus and priority for phytochemical validation. Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata was the highest-ranked multipurpose species but faces increasing anthropogenic threats. These findings emphasize the need for in situ and ex situ conservation and further phytochemical and pharmacological validation.
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.