scispace - formally typeset
E

Elsebeth Lynge

Researcher at University of Copenhagen

Publications -  484
Citations -  19048

Elsebeth Lynge is an academic researcher from University of Copenhagen. The author has contributed to research in topics: Population & Breast cancer. The author has an hindex of 59, co-authored 461 publications receiving 17055 citations. Previous affiliations of Elsebeth Lynge include Statens Serum Institut & Karolinska Institutet.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

The Danish National Patient Register

TL;DR: Although the NPR is overall a sound data source, both the content and the definitions of single variables have changed over time and researchers using the data should carefully consider potential fallacies in the data before drawing conclusions.
Journal ArticleDOI

Occupation and cancer – follow-up of 15 million people in five Nordic countries

TL;DR: Mesothelioma was the cancer type showing the largest relative differences between the occupations, and plumbers, seamen and mechanics were the occupations with the highest risk in the present study.
Journal ArticleDOI

European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis : Overview and introduction to the full Supplement publication.

L. von Karsa, +113 more
- 01 Jan 2013 - 
TL;DR: An overview of the principles, recommendations and standards in the guidelines for quality assurance in CRC screening and diagnosis are presented in journal format in an open-access Supplement of Endoscopy.
Journal ArticleDOI

The impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe: a review of observational studies

TL;DR: From a systematic literature review of European trend studies, the best ‘European’ estimate of breast cancer mortality reduction is 25–31% for women invited for screening, and 38–48% for Women actually screened.
Journal ArticleDOI

Overdiagnosis in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review

TL;DR: The most plausible estimates of overdiagnosis range from 1% to 10%, and substantially higher estimates reported in the literature are due to the lack of adjustment for breast cancer risk and/or lead time.