ArticlePloS one2020
Rhesus-minus phenotype as a predictor of sexual desire and behavior, wellbeing, mental health, and fecundity.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Beyond Latency: ChronicBiomedicines · 2025Review
- Article
- Redheaded women are more sexually active than other women, but it is probably due to their suitors.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- The importance of being heterozygote: effects of RHD-genotype-sex interaction on the physical and mental health of a non-clinical population.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Toxoplasmosis is a risk factor for acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection and a severe course of COVID-19 in the Czech and Slovak population: a preregistered exploratory internet cross-sectional study.Parasites & vectors · 2021Article
- Faster life history strategy manifests itself by lower age at menarche, higher sexual desire, and earlier reproduction in people with worse health.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince its discovery in the 1930s, the effects of Rh phenotype on human health and wellbeing, with the exception of the effects of Rh-negativity of a mother on the risk of hemolytic anemia of Rh-positive children, has only rarely been studied. In the last few years, however, several studies have shown that Rh-negative subjects have worse health and performance in certain tests than their Rh-positive peers. Nothing is known about the effect of Rh phenotype on the quality of life of subjects as measured by a standard instrument.
methodsWe hereby analyzed the data of 1768 male (24% Rh-negative) and 3759 female participants (23% Rh-negative) of an anonymous internet study using the partial Kendall test with the age and the population of the hometown of subjects controlled.
resultsThe results showed that the Rh-negative women, but not men, scored worse in wellbeing measured with the WHO-BREFF. The Rh-negative men scored worse in mental health-related variables and in their reported economic situation and the Rh-negative women scored better in physical health-related variables. Both the Rh-negative men and women reported higher sexual activity than their Rh-positive peers.
conclusionsThe effects of the Rh phenotype were significant after the correction for multiple tests. However, they were usually weaker and less numerous than those of smoking, consuming alcohol, and high body mass index, which were used as a sort of internal control.
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.