Dental recall: No Show And Reminder Effect Benchmark
The median published figure in the No Show And Reminder Effect Benchmark is 12.89 percent across 4 sources' own pages (range 5 to 23 percent), read 11 October 2026.
Recallvia sells its own paid plan in this category (our pricing). It is not counted here: every figure in this index is another provider's own published price, read from its own page.
4 of the 7 named sources read in full publish a figure; 3 publish none, read 11 October 2026.
The median is unchanged since 26 September 2026 (was 12.89 percent across 4).
Every figure, with its source
One row per source: the figure the source's own page publishes, the page, and the day it was read. A figure that is not on a page we read is not on this one.
The sentence each figure was read from (4)
- Dantas et al. 2018, no-shows in appointment scheduling: a systematic literature review (Health Policy), read 2026-10-11:
The results indicate that the average no-show rate is of the order of 23%, being highest in the African continent (43.0%) and lowest in Oceania (13.2%).
- Kheirkhah et al. 2016, prevalence, predictors and economic consequences of no-shows (BMC Health Services Research), read 2026-10-11:
Although the rates of no-show increased unexpectedly in 2005 (from 18.2 % in 2004 to 19.1 % in 2005), the average of no-show rates for 4 years before applying the reminder system was 18.17 % while the mean decreased to 16.96 % for 4 consecutive years after applying the reminder system.
- NHS England, reducing did not attends (DNAs) in outpatient services, read 2026-10-11:
Of the 103 million outpatient appointments booked in 2021/22, 7.6% ended in a ‘Did Not Attend’; this equates to an average of 650,000 monthly appointment slots.
- Reducing missed appointments in general practice: the EQUIP programme, East London (BJGP), read 2026-10-11:
This study is based on data from >4 million GP appointments made over 5 years, in a multi-ethnic, urban area of deprivation, in which most practices had DNA rates above the national average (5%).
Read in full, publishes no figure
3 named sources were read in full on the dates shown and print no usable figure. They are counted, never filled in.
- NHS England, 'tap the app' release on missed appointments, read 2026-09-11: read in full and no accepted figure on the page
- Gurol-Urganci et al., mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments (Cochrane review), read 2026-09-11: every candidate on the page was refused
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, mobile phone messaging reminders, read 2026-10-11: every candidate on the page was refused
Methodology
Every row is a verbatim sentence read from the named source's own page through our fetch service on the date shown, hash-pinned to the stored read (the sha of the page's visible text; the raw page is mirrored to R2).
4 of the 7 named sources that could be read published a usable figure; 3 published none and are recorded as not published, never filled in; 3 could not be read (blocked, dead or unreachable) and count nowhere.
The headline figures (median, minimum, maximum, quartiles) are over ONE figure per source in % (a source's median where its page yielded several accepted sentences), so N counts sources, never sentences; 22 candidate sentence(s) were refused by a reviewer with the reason recorded.
The fuller derivation this dataset is chartered to grow into (not yet what the figures above are; they are each source's own published figure as read): the missed-appointment rate per sector and country from each authority's own release, with its period, set beside the effect size measured in the systematic reviews of reminder interventions - so a practice can read what a reminder is worth per hundred appointments at its own no-show rate rather than at a vendor's claimed one; changed-since on each statistical release
22 candidate sentences on these pages were refused by a reviewer; each refusal and its reason is recorded in the review ledger.
Sources (10)
- NHS England Digital, appointments in general practice (the monthly DNA series)(the publisher's own terms; quoted for reporting and comment)
- NHS England Digital, hospital outpatient activity (the annual DNA rate)(the publisher's own terms; quoted for reporting and comment)
- NHS England Digital, appointments in general practice(the publisher's own terms; quoted for reporting and comment)
- NHS England, 'tap the app' release on missed appointments(the publisher's own terms; quoted for reporting and comment)
- NHS England, reducing did not attends (DNAs) in outpatient services(the publisher's own terms; quoted for reporting and comment)
- Kheirkhah et al. 2016, prevalence, predictors and economic consequences of no-shows (BMC Health Services Research)(the publisher's own terms; quoted for reporting and comment)
- Gurol-Urganci et al., mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments (Cochrane review)(the publisher's own terms; quoted for reporting and comment)
- Dantas et al. 2018, no-shows in appointment scheduling: a systematic literature review (Health Policy)(the publisher's own terms; quoted for reporting and comment)
- Reducing missed appointments in general practice: the EQUIP programme, East London (BJGP)(the publisher's own terms; quoted for reporting and comment)
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, mobile phone messaging reminders(the publisher's own terms; quoted for reporting and comment)
Cite or embed this figure
Cite or embed this figure
The median published figure in the No Show And Reminder Effect Benchmark is 12.89 percent across 4 sources' own pages (range 5 to 23 percent), read 11 October 2026.
4 of the 7 named sources read in full publish a figure; 3 publish none, read 11 October 2026.
The median is unchanged since 26 September 2026 (was 12.89 percent across 4).
Cite as: "Recallvia No Show And Reminder Effect Benchmark", updated 2026-10-18, https://recallvia.com/datasets/no-show-and-reminder-effect-benchmark/.
Download the CSV (4 rows, computed 2026-10-18)