A Review on Medicinal Plants Used in the Management of Headache in Africa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors of this paper present an interesting study on “A review on medicinal plants used in the management of headache in Africa”. However, this work could be polished up taking into account the following suggestions:

- Please improve Figure 2 that is not understandable since the labels are less than the bars additionally

Line111-112: reported families that are not included in Figure 2.

Author Response

Please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript plants-1339890 entiled "A review on medicinal plants used in the management of headache in Africa" provides an interesting source of information about the popular use of plants to alleviate headache.

Before being considered this manuscript for publication in the journal Plants, I suggest that Authors include in the Abstract the methodology used in this review (although in fact in Methods, Selection of published articles this methodology is described). Another points to include in Abstract are keywords and period of time revised in data bases.

Author Response

Please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper entitled "A review on medicinal plants used in the management of headache in Africa" ​​is an interesting review paper that summarized the results of 87 papers, which is more than enough for a good review paper. The authors presented the methodology of the paper selection well and summarized the important information from the examined papers. However, there is a lack of discussion, ie giving some more concrete results from the works. For example, about the very possible action of certain plants, their potential effectiveness, etc. 

Line 20-22: In the abstract you repeat in two sentences the same, there is no need for two identical sentences. 

Line 40-43: It would be interesting, given that there are such large differences, to state a possible reason for this. 

Line 46-48: Redraw the sentence a bit to make it understandable, and the dot at the end of the sentence is missing. 

Line 52: The dot is missing.

Table 1.  Somewhere after the reference number is a written dot, somewhere not. It is necessary to standardize the way of writing. 

Line 70-72: Redraw the sentence a bit to make it understandable.

Table 2. In the table it would be good, if for a plant there are more references or a different method of preparation or a different part of the plant used, the row where it is stated has the plants merge with the row below, it would be clearer. 

Line 151-152: Similarly, Ocimum gratissimum L., a plant grown in both Ghana [125] and Madagascar [13], is used by local inhabitants to manage headache.

Pay attention to duplicate spaces throughout the manuscript .

Line 161: Brackets are missing. 

Line 156-162: It would be good to cite another example as a negative impact of medicinal plants, if any, given that only one case is mentioned, and it is stated that this is of great importance to the WHO. 

Line 173: Correct the word leaves. 

Line 184: Is there any difference between decoction and infusion or is it just another name for the same method? 

Line 190-194: The sentence is too long and difficult to follow, maybe split it into two sentences. 

Line 207-215: In the researched papers (87) do some authors state why they opted for the inhalation / sniffing method, given that you cited the work from India as the only example. In addition, Graph 5 shows the topical application, which you did not mention in the text. 

Is it stated in the researched works which doses were in question, ie which doses show efficacy. In general, I think it would be good to mention a little more whether and how the effectiveness of these herbs in headaches has been examined. Out of 117 plants, only three of them are mentioned throughout the text, so it would not be bad to mention another of the often mentioned plants. 

Author Response

Please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The review work carried out by the authors is very interesting and important in the field of traditional medicinal values of plants.

However, there are some issues and errors that need to be addressed prior to its publication.

Line 48 and 52: start the sentences properly. "including plants As indication.."

"Line 52: "African continent A study conducted ..."

Table 1 can be accommodated in the result

Table 2: Alternanthera sessilis and Dysphania ambrosioides : If you are writing the whole plant, then no need to write leaves separately.

Table 2: 13..... Albizia aura......remore "branches" and write the specific part.

Figure 1 is not necessary. Write the overview procedure in the material and methods.

Table 1and 2: remove unnecessary lines (horizontal and vertical lines).

Figure 2,3,4,and 5: revise each figure. Fonts sizes are not uniform. X and Y lines are missing. 

Line 117: replace "for headache in Africa..." by "for curing headache in Africa"

Table 2: I think the local name of ALlium cepa is easily available in the Nigerian language. This is a very common plant.

Author Response

Please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors of the manuscript have responded to all the comments with appropriate answers and revised the MS. In my view, the MS can be accepted for publication.