Systematic Review of Ethnobotanical Research Methods in West Africa: A Bibliometric and Methodological Overview of Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches

Abstract

Background: Ethnobotanical reports combine interviews, inventories, interpretation and botanical investigation, but these procedures support different inferences. A methods-focused synthesis should distinguish data collection from qualitative analysis, quantification and genuine integration. Objective: To describe and appraise qualitative and quantitative ethnobotanical methods documented in eligible West African field reports and provide a bounded descriptive bibliometric overview. Methods: An unregistered review protocol used 28 ranked live-web discovery queries on 15 July 2026, with publisher, repository and author-posted retrieval. Original journal reports published from 1 January 2000 to 15 July 2026 were assessed through a single reviewer workflow. Domain-based MMAT appraisal, source-specific extraction and narrative synthesis were undertaken; there was no meta-analysis or independent human review. Results: Of 81 returned records, 52 remained after deduplication; 37 full reports were sought, nine were not retrieved, and 26 were included after two assessed exclusions. The reports represented 25 provisional study families, 19 journals and fieldwork in all 16 eligible countries. There were 22 English and four French reports. Operational classification identified 22 quantitative descriptive, two qualitative and two mixed-methods reports. Sampling units, index denominators and the distinction between reported practice and demonstrated outcome constrained comparison. Explicit integration was visible in studies linking everyday observation or locally generated values to quantitative interpretation. Conclusions: The corpus supports a distinction between elicitation, analysis and justified inference rather than a hierarchy based on sample size or numerical complexity. Priorities include transparent units, sampling, integration, botanical traceability and knowledge governance. Bounded retrieval, unavailable reports, single-workflow appraisal and incomplete metadata/status clearance limit regional generalisation and preclude clinical endorsement.