Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To synthesize empirical studies that investigate the cognitive and social processes involved in the deliberation process of guideline development meetings and determine the distribution of deliberated topics.
METHODS: We conducted a mixed-method systematic review using a convergent segregated approach. We searched for empirical studies that investigate the intragroup dynamics of guideline development meetings indexed in bibliographic databases.
RESULTS: Of the 5,899 citations screened, 12 studies from six countries proved eligible. Chairs, cochairs, and methodologists contributed to at least one-third of the discussion time in guideline development meetings; patient partners contributed the least. In interdisciplinary groups, male gender and occupation as a physician were positively associated with the amount of contribution. Compared to groups that used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach, for groups that did not, when faced with insufficient or low-quality evidence, relied more on their clinical experience. The presence of a cognitive \"yes\" bias was apparent in meetings: panelists tended to acquiesce with positive statements that required less cognitive effort than negative statements.
CONCLUSIONS: The social dynamics of the discussions were linked to each panelist\'s activity role, professional background, and gender, all of which influenced the level of contributions they made in guideline development meetings.
METHODS: We conducted a mixed-method systematic review using a convergent segregated approach. We searched for empirical studies that investigate the intragroup dynamics of guideline development meetings indexed in bibliographic databases.
RESULTS: Of the 5,899 citations screened, 12 studies from six countries proved eligible. Chairs, cochairs, and methodologists contributed to at least one-third of the discussion time in guideline development meetings; patient partners contributed the least. In interdisciplinary groups, male gender and occupation as a physician were positively associated with the amount of contribution. Compared to groups that used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach, for groups that did not, when faced with insufficient or low-quality evidence, relied more on their clinical experience. The presence of a cognitive \"yes\" bias was apparent in meetings: panelists tended to acquiesce with positive statements that required less cognitive effort than negative statements.
CONCLUSIONS: The social dynamics of the discussions were linked to each panelist\'s activity role, professional background, and gender, all of which influenced the level of contributions they made in guideline development meetings.
摘要：
目的：综合实证研究，调查指南制定会议审议过程中涉及的认知和社会过程，并确定审议主题的分布。
方法：我们使用融合分离方法进行了混合方法系统综述。我们搜索了实证研究，以调查在书目数据库中索引的指南开发会议的组内动态。
结果：在筛选的5899篇引文中，来自六个国家的12项研究证明合格。椅子,共同主席，方法学家在指南制定会议上至少贡献了三分之一的讨论时间;患者合作伙伴贡献最少.在跨学科小组中，男性性别和医生职业与贡献量呈正相关.与使用分级方法的小组相比，没有的团体，当面对不足或低质量的证据时，更依赖于他们的临床经验。在会议中，认知“是”偏见的存在是显而易见的：小组成员倾向于默许积极的陈述，而这些陈述需要比消极陈述更少的认知努力。
结论：讨论的社会动态与每个小组成员的活动角色有关，专业背景,和性别,所有这些都影响了他们在准则制定会议上做出的贡献。
方法：我们使用融合分离方法进行了混合方法系统综述。我们搜索了实证研究，以调查在书目数据库中索引的指南开发会议的组内动态。
结果：在筛选的5899篇引文中，来自六个国家的12项研究证明合格。椅子,共同主席，方法学家在指南制定会议上至少贡献了三分之一的讨论时间;患者合作伙伴贡献最少.在跨学科小组中，男性性别和医生职业与贡献量呈正相关.与使用分级方法的小组相比，没有的团体，当面对不足或低质量的证据时，更依赖于他们的临床经验。在会议中，认知“是”偏见的存在是显而易见的：小组成员倾向于默许积极的陈述，而这些陈述需要比消极陈述更少的认知努力。
结论：讨论的社会动态与每个小组成员的活动角色有关，专业背景,和性别,所有这些都影响了他们在准则制定会议上做出的贡献。
