Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41862218›Full record

SynthesisTheScientificWorldJournal2026

Ethnomedicinal Practices of the Fabaceae Family in Tanzania: A Systematic Review.

David Sylvester Kacholi

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in TheScientificWorldJournal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

1 author.

David Sylvester KacholiDepartment of Biological Sciences, Dar es Salaam University College of Education (DUCE), Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6049-2201

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study is aimed at reviewing the ethnomedicinal, phytochemical and pharmacological properties of Fabaceae species used as sources of traditional medications in Tanzania. Using the Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology, a comprehensive review was conducted on Fabaceae species used by Tanzanians through electronic databases such as Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, African Journals Online, PubMed and Wiley Online Library. After systematic screening and eligibility assessment, 51 studies highlighted diverse traditional healing practices across the country's regions. The botanical names were verified through the Plants of the World Online database. The study revealed that 97 Fabaceae species traditionally treat human ailments in Tanzania. The genera with the highest number of species with medicinal uses are Vachellia, followed by Albizia and Senegalia. The species with the highest usage records are Abrus precatorius, Cassia abbreviata, Tamarindus indica, Alantsilodendron pilosum and Erythrina abyssinica. Trees (46%), herbs (30%) and shrubs (24%) are the primary sources of traditional medicines, whereas roots (63%), leaves (41%) and stem bark (28%) are the most widely used plant parts. The majority of the species are characterized by flavonoids (62.5%), followed by phenolic compounds (38.9%), terpenoids (33.3%) and tannins (33.3%). Though many Fabaceae species have been evaluated for their phytochemical and pharmacological properties, validating their toxicological properties is paramount.

Indexed as

FabaceaeMedicine, African TraditionalPlants, MedicinalHumansPhytotherapyPlant ExtractsTanzaniaPlant ExtractsethnobotanyethnomedicineFabaceaeherbal remediesnatural compoundspharmacological activitiestraditional knowledge

Identifiers

PMID41862218
PMCPMC13140246

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.