designed for survivors of cancer. Articles were excluded from the systematic review if they focused only on pediatric cancer survivor populations or on populations that transitioned from pediatric cancer to adult services; if they addressed only pharmacologic interventions or diagnostic testing and follow-up of cancer survivors; if they were systematic reviews with inadequately described methods; if they were qualitative or descriptive studies; and if they were opinion papers, letters, or editorials. Data Extraction and SynthesisEvidence was selected and reviewed by three members of the Cancer Journey Survivorship Expert Panel (SM, TC, TKO). The resulting summary of the evidence was guided further and reviewed by the members of Cancer Journey Survivorship Expert Panel. Fourteen practice guidelines, eight systematic reviews, and sixty-thee randomized controlled trials form the evidence base for this guidance document. These publications demonstrate that survivors benefit from coordinated post-treatment care, including interventions to address specific psychosocial, supportive care, and rehabilitative concerns. ConclusionsOngoing high-quality research is essential to optimize services for cancer survivors. Interventions that promote healthy lifestyle behaviours or that address psychosocial concerns and distress appear to improve physical functioning, psychosocial well-being, and quality of life for survivors. ABSTRACT ObjectiveOur goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations for the organization and structure of cancer survivorship services, and best-care practices to optimize the health and well-being of post-primary treatment survivors. This review sought to determine the optimal organization and care delivery structure for cancer survivorship services, and the specific clinical practices and interventions that would improve or maximize the psychosocial health and overall wellbeing of adult cancer survivors. Data SourcesWe conducted a systematic search of the

No abstract

No abstract

This study examines the revision histories of 10 Wikipedia articles nominated for the site's Featured Article Class (FAC), its highest quality rating, 5 of which achieved FAC and 5 of which did not. The revisions to each article were coded, and the coding results were combined with a descriptive analysis of two representative articles in order to determine revision patterns. All articles in both groups showed a higher percentage of additions of new material compared to deletions and revisions that rearranged the text. Although the FAC articles had roughly equal numbers of content and surface revisions, the non-FAC articles had fewer surface revisions and were dominated by content revisions. Although the unique features of the Wikipedia environment inhibit strict comparisons between these results and those of earlier revision studies, these results suggest revision in this environment places unique structural demands on writers, possibly leading to unique revision patterns.