Repeat analysis utilising a larger number of papers may have produced a more conclusive result. This review had some limitations. One article could not be obtained in full text, despite all reasonable efforts, eg, interlibrary loan. The search was limited to randomised trials because intervention

efficacy was measured as a component of the review. The search thus yielded fewer paper for analysis. Including quasi-randomised and observational studies may have altered our analysis of effects of factors on adherence. The primary difficulty encountered during this review was the interpretation of adherence data, which was reported poorly. It is recommended that authors make reporting adherence data commonplace, and establish a consistent, easy to understand measure for recording, eg, consistently

providing the mean percentage of sessions attended including Selleck NSC 683864 and excluding drop-outs. To obtain dichotomous data for analysis, the percentage of participants who achieved the goal number of sessions (in most cases, 100% of sessions) was utilised. This would enable the identification of the percentage of participants who adhered, and those who did not. However this figure presents limitations. For example, if a participant attended 9 out of a possible 10 sessions, they would be classed as noncompliant. The reality in the community setting is a wide spectrum of adherence to exercise. Had more consistent and detailed adherence data been stated in the included studies, a more precise representation of adherence SPTLC1 BIBW2992 concentration in the community setting may have been achieved. During the synthesis of the data, it was discovered that the session-based data that were extracted, namely the mean percentage of sessions attended, were not suitable for analysis. In order to maximise the amount of data available for analysis, the extracted data were modified to represent dichotomous data, eg, if the mean percentage

of adherence was 68% among 100 participants, then 68 participants were classed as adherent. This modification presents a limitation in this research. In order for sensitivity analysis to be conducted, 10 datasets were removed from analysis, as they did not provide an additional measure of adherence (excluding drop outs). This may have contributed to some discrepancies in the data. For example, the odds ratio (0.54) for the presence of a flexibility component in the intervention became nonsignificant (95% CI 0.23 to 1.31) during sensitivity analysis. This highlights the need for further research to confirm the effect of factors on adherence. The results of this review suggest that the way in which group exercise interventions are designed and delivered influences adherence rates. Several program-related factors that affect adherence to exercise were identified. In a group exercise setting, the inclusion of flexibility-based exercise may require further consideration.