ArticleCVIR endovascular2024
The status of academic interventional radiologists in Germany with focus on gender disparity: how can we do better?
Article in CVIR endovascular, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Exploring gender roles in German interventional radiology - how progressive are we?]RoFo : Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin · 2025Article
- [Interventional radiology - Training and career opportunities].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim was to characterize the framework conditions in academic interventional radiology (IR) in Germany with focus on differences between genders. MATERIALS AND
methodsAfter IRB approval, all members of The German Society for Interventional Radiology and Minimally Invasive Therapy (n = 1,632) were invited to an online survey on work and research. Statistical comparisons were undertaken with the Fisher's exact test, Wilcoxon rank sum test or Pearson's Chi-squared test.
resultsFrom 267 available questionnaires (general response rate 16.4%), 200 were fully completed. 40% of these (78/200) were involved in research (71% men vs. 29% women, p < 0.01) and eligible for further analysis. Of these, 6% worked part-time (2% vs. 17%, p < 0.05). 90% of the respondents spent less than 25% of their research during their paid working hours, and 41% performed more than 75% of their research during. leisure time. 28% received exemption for research. 88% were (rather) satisfied with their career. One in two participants successfully applied for funding, with higher success rates among male applicants (90% vs. 75%) and respondents with protected research time (93% vs. 80%). Compared to men, women rated their entrance in research as harder (p < 0.05), their research career as more important (p < 0.05), felt less noticed at congresses (93% vs. 53%, p < 0.01), less confident (98% vs. 71%, p < 0.01), and not well connected (77% vs. 36%, p < 0.01).
conclusionWomen and men did research under the same circumstances; however, women were underrepresented. Future programs should generally focus on protected research time and gather female mentors to advance academic IR in Germany.
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.