ArticleCureus2026
Determination of the Prevalence of Barr Body in Buccal Smear in the East Khasi Hills Population.
Article in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose Sex determination is an important identification data of an individual. Among various methods of sex determination, nuclear sexing methods hold pristine value, as it can be done in cases of mutilated remains and in cases of decomposition. X chromatin is inactivated naturally and is seen in the nucleus as Barr bodies. Buccal mucosa is an ideal sample as it is non-invasive. The study was done to estimate the prevalence of Barr bodies among the tribal population of Meghalaya, India. Method Buccal mucosa samples were collected by gentle scraping from both sides of the mouth, smeared on a slide, subjected to Hematoxylin and Eosin staining; 100 cells were viewed under a microscope, data was collected, and appropriate statistical tests were applied. Results A total of 171 participants were included, comprising 91 (53.2%) males and 80 (46.8%) females. Barr bodies were identifie in 80/80 (100%) females and 4/91 (4.4%) males. The mean Barr body count was significantly higher among females (43.05 ± 7.00) than males (0.08 ± 0.45; p < 0.001). No significant association was observed between the interval from sample collection to laboratory processing and Barr body detection (p = 0.465). Conclusion The percentage of Barr bodies among men and women differs significantly, and the distribution is statistically significant. Although Barr body positivity was observed in four male participants, cytogenetic confirmation by karyotyping or fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) was not performed; therefore, these findings cannot be interpreted as evidence of underlying sex chromosome abnormalities. There was no effect on detection upon the time difference between sample collection and processing, so the samples can be collected in an outside setting and then processed in a lab.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.