ArticleNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2025
The Gender Award Gap in German medical societies 2000-2023: the Fritz-Külz-Award as an example.
Article in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Gender distribution in visceral surgery : 11 years visceral medicine congress -A call for equal opportunities].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Ursula Ravens - recipient of the Schmiedeberg Medal: a distinguished career dedicated to cardiovascular pharmacology and cardiac electrophysiology.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- A brief history of the German Society for Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology-an overview of available sources.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
- Should we consider gender aspects in pharmacology teaching? No-we must!Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Country-specific citation disparities in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology from 2001 to 2024.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- 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
- Gender- and discipline-specific bibliometric analysis of elite biomedical scientists: how is pharmacology performing?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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Science prizes contribute to the visibility of researchers within and outside the medical community. Our article contains a descriptive analysis of the prize development in German medical societies since the turn of the millennium, focussing on the development of gender differences and discussing the findings with regard to necessary structural changes and the general significance of prizes in medicine. The study is based on data from all documented prizes and honours awarded by the 183 German medical societies currently organised in the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF, Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften) in the period 2000-2023, including the Fritz-Külz-Award in pharmacology. For the first time, our study enables a differentiated overall view of the diverse prize culture in German medical societies, with 1213 awards (including 201 scholarships). The results show that the gender award gap found in international studies, particularly for prestigious awards, has continuously narrowed in the awarding practice of German medical societies since 2000. However, a gender-specific imbalance is still recognisable, particularly in the case of prestigious honorary prizes and more highly endowed research prizes. Differences between the specialist societies, depending on the speciality, the respective proportion of female specialists and the proportion of female scientists among the members must be investigated in further detailed studies. The specialist societies are therefore called upon to make their nomination and application practices even more transparent in order to better recognise potential disadvantages.
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.