ArticleScientific reports2026
Quantitative ethnobotany and evidence-based analysis of antidiabetic medicinal plants used in Biswanath district, Assam, India.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Type 2 diabetes is a growing public health concern in India, while plant-based remedies remain important in Assam. This study documented plants used for diabetes-related complaints in Biswanath district, quantified diabetes-specific salience and consensus, and integrated ethnobotanical indices with pharmacological evidence. From December 2022 to March 2024, semi-structured interviews with 440 informants were complemented by voucher-based taxonomic authentication. Relative Frequency of Citation (RFC) and Fidelity Level (FL) were diabetes-specific, whereas Use Value (UV) measured ethnomedicinal versatility across all ailments. Published species-level antidiabetic evidence was graded as no eligible evidence, in vitro only, or in vivo and/or human. We documented 63 species in 57 genera and 39 families. Among 83 plant-part use records, fruit (22.9%) and leaf (21.7%) were most frequent. Andrographis paniculata (RFC = 0.223), Kalanchoe pinnata (0.200), and Nyctanthes arbor-tristis (0.180) were most frequently cited for diabetes; Allium sativum had the highest overall UV across all ailments (2.359), and Syzygium cumini the highest diabetes-specific FL (92.59%). Evidence-salience mapping placed 16 species (25.4%) in the Overlap zone; none met Gap-zone criteria under the species-level framework. Hydrocotyle sibthorpioides and Alocasia odora had only in vitro evidence. The framework supports prioritisation but does not establish the efficacy or safety of locally used plant parts or preparations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.