Medicinal plants traditionally used for the management of diabetes-related symptoms: an ethnobotanical study among traditional practitioners in twenty-five markets in Burundi

Diabetes is a growing global health challenge, while access to appropriate healthcare remains limited in many settings. Traditional medicine is widely used in Burundi, but the medicinal plants and therapeutic practices used by traditional practitioners for symptoms associated with diabetes remain insufficiently documented. This study documents these plants and their reported uses. An ethnobotanical survey was conducted across 25 public markets throughout Burundi from February to August 2024. A total of 146 traditional practitioners were approached, of whom 64 reported managing diabetes-related symptoms and were included in the analysis. Participants were interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire. Purposive and snowball sampling were used. Ethnobotanical data were summarized using frequency of citation and relative frequency of citation. A total of 121 plant species from 51 families and 111 genera were identified. Asteraceae (14.87%) and Fabaceae (13.22%) were the most represented. Practitioners reported 30 signs and symptoms related to diabetes, with 55 multiherbal recipes and eight monoherbal recipes. The most cited species were Gymnanthemum amygdalinum (FC = 17; RFC = 0.27), Dicoma anomala (FC = 14; RFC = 0.22), Erythrina abyssinica (FC = 13; RFC = 0.20) and Parinari curatellifolia (FC = 12; RFC = 0.19) and Ageratum conyzoides (FC = 11; RFC = 0.17). Most species were phanerophytes (50.41%) and hemicryptophytes (28.93%), with leaves (52.41%) and bark (27%) being the most common. Decoction predominated (65.6%) and was mostly administered orally (97.6%). This study provides a nationwide ethnobotanical baseline of medicinal plants and practices reported by traditional practitioners for the management of diabetes-related symptoms in Burundi. The documented species should not be interpreted as clinically effective treatments on the basis of ethnobotanical evidence alone. They warrant further phytochemical, pharmacological, and toxicological investigations; the species supported by sufficient preclinical evidence could then be an asset for subsequent clinical research.