Table 2.

Summary of findings

Prediction plus phone reminders compared to usual scheduling for managing appointment attendance
Patient or population: outpatients
Setting: outpatient clinics
Intervention: prediction plus phone reminders
Comparison: usual scheduling
Outcomes	Anticipated absolute effectsa (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	No. participants (studies)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)
	Risk with usual scheduling	Risk with prediction plus phone reminders
No-shows Assessed with: hospital records Follow-up: median 2 months	226 per 1000	0 per 1000 (111–169)b	RR ranged from 0.49 to 0.75	4959 (3 RCTs)b	⊕⊕⊕◯ Moderated

Prediction plus text message reminders compared to usual scheduling for managing appointment attendance
Patient or population: outpatients
Setting: outpatient clinics
Intervention: prediction plus text message reminders
Comparison: usual scheduling
Outcomes	Anticipated absolute effectsa (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	No. participants (studies)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)
	Risk with usual scheduling	Risk with prediction plus text message reminders
No-shows Assessed with: hospital records Follow-up: 7 months	114 per 1000	0 per 1000 (102–106)	RR ranged from 0.89 to 0.93c	158669 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊕⊕ High

Prediction plus patient navigator compared to usual scheduling for managing appointment attendance
Patient or population: outpatients
Setting: outpatient clinics
Intervention: prediction plus patient navigator
Comparison: usual scheduling
Outcomes	Anticipated absolute effectsa (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	No. participants (studies)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)
	Risk with usual scheduling	Risk with prediction plus patient navigator
No-shows Assessed with: hospital records Follow-up: 5 months	131 per 1000	72 per 1000 (60–88)	RR 0.55 (0.46–0.67)	4425 (1 RCT)	⊕⊕⊕◯ Moderatee

Abbreviations: CI: confidence interval; RCTs: randomized controlled trials; RR: risk ratio.

^a The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

^bParticipant numbers and risk ratios were unavailable for Lee et al⁴² for all outcomes. Lee et al⁴² reported a statistically significant decrease of −18.7% (P < .001) in no-show rate.

^cResults were reported separately for mental health and primary care patients.

^dTwo of 3 studies were at high risk of bias; this included high risk of bias for randomization in the largest study.

^eSingle study at high risk of bias for randomization.