M
Mats Talbäck
Researcher at Karolinska Institutet
Publications - 86
Citations - 4887
Mats Talbäck is an academic researcher from Karolinska Institutet. The author has contributed to research in topics: Population & Cohort study. The author has an hindex of 25, co-authored 73 publications receiving 3982 citations. Previous affiliations of Mats Talbäck include National Board of Health and Welfare & Uppsala University.
Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
The completeness of the Swedish Cancer Register: a sample survey for year 1998.
TL;DR: The overall completeness of the SCR is high and comparable to other high quality registers in Northern Europe, and the degree of underreporting is site specific, increases with age, and does not seem to be random.
Journal ArticleDOI
The Swedish cause of death register.
Hannah L. Brooke,Mats Talbäck,Jesper Hörnblad,Lars Johansson,Jonas F. Ludvigsson,Henrik Druid,Maria Feychting,Rickard Ljung +7 more
TL;DR: The origins and composition of the Swedish cause of death register are described, the key strengths and weaknesses of the register are set out, and the main causes of death across age groups and over time in Sweden are presented.
Journal ArticleDOI
Insulin glargine use and short-term incidence of malignancies—a population-based follow-up study in Sweden
Junmei Miao Jonasson,Rickard Ljung,Rickard Ljung,Mats Talbäck,Bengt Haglund,S Gudbjornsdottir,Gunnar Steineck +6 more
TL;DR: No definitive conclusions regarding a possible causal relationship between insulin glargine use and the occurrence of malignancies can be drawn from the results of this study.
Journal Article
Prediction of cancer incidence in the Nordic countries up to the year 2020.
Bjørn Møller,Harald Fekjaer,Timo Hakulinen,Laufey Tryggvadottir,Hans H. Storm,Mats Talbäck,Tor Haldorsen +6 more
Journal ArticleDOI
Prediction of cancer incidence in the Nordic countries: empirical comparison of different approaches.
Bjørn Møller,Harald Fekjaer,Timo Hakulinen,Helgi Sigvaldason,Hans H. Storm,Mats Talbäck,Tor Haldorsen +6 more
TL;DR: An empirical comparison of different versions of the age‐period‐cohort model, using data from cancer registries in the Nordic countries for the period 1958–1997, has four main conclusions: projecting current trends worked better than assuming that future rates are equal to present rates.