ArticlePathologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2024
[Awards in pathology-a man's world?]
Article in Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Schmiedeberg Medal of the German Society for Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology: a biographical and bibliometric analysis of the 47 recipients from 1956 to 2024.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025Article
- Understanding the pathology workforce: motivations, job satisfaction, and training perspectives in Germany.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2025Article
- The Gender Award Gap in German medical societies 2000-2023: the Fritz-Külz-Award as an example.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAwards provide their recipients with fame and recognition, and subsequently facilitate publications and acquisition of external funding through increased visibility. We hypothesize that despite increasing representation in pathology, women are underrepresented as awardees in the German Society of Pathology and consequently there is an associated imbalance between genders. MATERIAL AND
methodsPublished data from the German Society of Pathology on female awardees during the period from 2000 to 2022 were examined. Only awards specifically dedicated to the field of pathology were considered. In addition, the publicly available data of the German Medical Association on gender and age distribution of pathologists in Germany were considered as reference material.
resultsA total of six different awards were included in the analysis. Among the 143 awardees across 150 individual awards in the period from 2000 to 2022, 55 (38.4%) of the awardees were female compared to an average percentage of 31% of women working in the field of pathology in the 23-year period under consideration. Consequently, female awardees in pathology were not underrepresented when compared to the national figures on the proportion of women in the field of pathology. However, the distribution of female awardees across individual awards suggests that women were increasingly represented in less prestigious research and doctoral awards, while men made up a large proportion of awardees of honorary awards (0% women) and prestigious awards (17% women).
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.