Cited by 189Ethnobotanical and Medicinal Plants StudiesAfrican Botany and Ecology StudiesMedicinal Plant Research

A review of commercially important African medicinal plants

Van Wyk, B.-E.·2015·Journal of Ethnopharmacology

Abstract

Ethnopharmacological relevance Data on the relative importance and research status of commercially relevant African medicinal plants are needed for developing new research strategies in order to stimulate much-needed ethnopharmacological research and to promote the commercialization of African plants.Aim of the study To present an illustrated bird's eye view and comparative analysis of the relative popularity and importance of commercialized African medicinal plants. A comparison is made between the general popularity and commercial importance of the species (as indicated by their footprint on the World Wide Web) and their scientific popularity and importance (as indicated by the number of research publications). The inventory and review is strongly focussed to cover all or most of the medicinal plant raw materials in the international trade that are exported from African countries, with less emphasis on those that are regularly traded on local and regional markets within Africa.Materials and methods The review is based on literature data, Scopus and Google searches, commercial information and the author's own experience and observations.Results More than 5400 plant species are used in traditional medicine in Africa, of which less than 10% have been commercially developed to some extent. Africa is home to more than 80 valuable commercial species that are regularly traded on international markets, including phytomedicines (e.g. Harpagophytum procumbens and Pelargonium sidoides), functional foods (e.g. Adansonia digitata and Hibiscus sabdariffa) and sources of pure chemical entities (e.g. caffeine from Coffea arabica and yohimbine from Pausinystalia johimbe). According to the Scopus results, about 60% of all recent publications on African medicinal plants appeared in the last decade, with an average of 280 papers (28 per year) for 85 prominent species of international trade. The most popular African species for research (number of publications in brackets) were: Ricinus communis (5187), Aloe vera (2832), Catharanthus roseus (2653), Sesamum indicum (2534), Strophanthus gratus (2514), Coffea arabica (2431), Citrullus lanatus (2215), Momordica charantia (2047), Withania somnifera (1767), Trigonella foenum-graecum (1687), Acacia senegal (1373), Centella asiatica (1355), Griffonia simplicifolia (1010), Hibiscus sabdariffa (987), Tamarindus indica (973) and Catha edulis (947). The top species in terms of recent research interest (% of publications in last decade) were: Hoodia gordonii (95%), Cyclopia genistoides (93%), Sceletium tortuosum (90%), Agathosma betulina (89%), Pelargonium sidoides (86%), Boswellia papyrifera (85%), Lessertia (Sutherlandia) frutescens (84%), Boswellia sacra (83%), Mondia whitei (81%), Hibiscus sabdariffa (80%), Hypoxis hemerocallidea (80%) and Tylosema esculentum (80%). Both lists reflect the recent interest in functional foods and dietary supplements.Conclusion Despite a marked recent increase in the number of publications on indigenous medicinal plants and dietary supplements, Africa lags behind Europe and Asia in terms of the number of products that have been commercialised and the percentage of the flora that is utilized for international trade. There is a tremendous potential for developing new crops and new products but much work remains to be done to generate more focussed and relevant pre-clinical data and convincing proof of concept through clinical studies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jep.2015.10.031

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Van Wyk, B.-E.
Venue
Journal of Ethnopharmacology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-12
Volume
176
Pages
118-134
ISSN
0378-8741 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2193061987
Cited by
189
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 7
FWCI
11.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Ethnopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Johannesburg
  • National Research Foundation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Ethnobotanical and Medicinal Plants Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › African Botany and Ecology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Medicinal Plant Research
Keywords
African medicinal plants, traditional medicine, herbal medicine, publication trends, Ricinus communis, Aloe vera, Catharanthus roseus, Coffea arabica, Withania somnifera, functional foods, caffeine, yohimbine, ethnoveterinary medicine, ethnobotany
MeSH terms
Africa, Commerce, Humans, Phytotherapy, Plants, Medicinal, Medicine, African Traditional

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review