# 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 · https://recallvia.com/datasets/no-show-and-reminder-effect-benchmark/ · computed 2026-10-18

**Median published figure:** 12.89 % (range 5 to 23 %; 4 sources with a figure; 4 of 7 sources read publish one).

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.

| Source | Figure | Read |
|---|---|---|
| [Dantas et al. 2018, no-shows in appointment scheduling: a systematic literature review (Health Policy)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29482948/) | 23 % | 2026-10-11 |
| [Kheirkhah et al. 2016, prevalence, predictors and economic consequences of no-shows (BMC Health Services Research)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4714455/) | 18.17 % | 2026-10-11 |
| [NHS England, reducing did not attends (DNAs) in outpatient services](https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/reducing-did-not-attends-dnas-in-outpatient-services/) | 7.6 % | 2026-10-11 |
| [Reducing missed appointments in general practice: the EQUIP programme, East London (BJGP)](https://bjgp.org/content/71/702/e31) | 5 % | 2026-10-11 |

## The sentence each figure was read from (4)

- [Dantas et al. 2018, no-shows in appointment scheduling: a systematic literature review (Health Policy)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29482948/), 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)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4714455/), 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](https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/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)](https://bjgp.org/content/71/702/e31), 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

- [NHS England, 'tap the app' release on missed appointments](https://www.england.nhs.uk/2026/03/nhs-urges-tap-the-app-as-1-in-4-miss-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)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6485985/), read 2026-09-11: every candidate on the page was refused
- [Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, mobile phone messaging reminders](https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD007458.pub3/full), 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

## Sources

- [NHS England Digital, appointments in general practice (the monthly DNA series)](https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/appointments-in-general-practice) (the publisher's own terms; quoted for reporting and comment)
- [NHS England Digital, hospital outpatient activity (the annual DNA rate)](https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/hospital-outpatient-activity) (the publisher's own terms; quoted for reporting and comment)
- [NHS England Digital, appointments in general practice](https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/appointments-in-general-practice/appointments-in-general-practice-supporting-information) (the publisher's own terms; quoted for reporting and comment)
- [NHS England, 'tap the app' release on missed appointments](https://www.england.nhs.uk/2026/03/nhs-urges-tap-the-app-as-1-in-4-miss-appointments/) (the publisher's own terms; quoted for reporting and comment)
- [NHS England, reducing did not attends (DNAs) in outpatient services](https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/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)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4714455/) (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)](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6485985/) (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)](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29482948/) (the publisher's own terms; quoted for reporting and comment)
- [Reducing missed appointments in general practice: the EQUIP programme, East London (BJGP)](https://bjgp.org/content/71/702/e31) (the publisher's own terms; quoted for reporting and comment)
- [Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, mobile phone messaging reminders](https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD007458.pub3/full) (the publisher's own terms; quoted for reporting and comment)

## Cite or embed

- 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/.

CSV: https://recallvia.com/datasets/no-show-and-reminder-effect-benchmark.csv
JSON: https://recallvia.com/datasets/no-show-and-reminder-effect-benchmark.json
Embed (plain HTML, static link back): see https://recallvia.com/datasets/no-show-and-reminder-effect-benchmark/#median