ArticleEye (London, England)2026
Patterns of appointment cancellations and no-shows across and within ophthalmology subspecialties.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPreventing appointment non-adherence is critical for efficient ophthalmology clinic operations and protecting patients' vision. This study examined patterns of cancellations and no-shows across and within comprehensive and subspecialty clinics.
methodsThis cross-sectional study used multivariable logistic regression to analyse appointment records from Kensington Vision & Research Centre, Toronto, Canada, between 2013 and 2024, covering comprehensive ophthalmology and 10 subspecialties.
resultsIn total, 760,678 appointments involving 109,435 patients were included. Overall, 26.5% were cancelled and 4.7% were no-shows. Male sex is associated with 25% higher no-show likelihood but 9% lower cancellation likelihood. Patients ≤50 years old, particularly those aged 20-30, are significantly more likely to no-show. Greater home-to-clinic distance is linked to fewer no-shows but slightly more cancellations. After 4 PM, cancellations increase while no-shows decrease, and 12-1 PM carries the lowest risk for both. Mondays and Saturdays had the highest no-show and lowest cancellation rates, respectively. Having only one scheduled visit is the strongest predictor of no-show (OR 3.73, p
conclusionThis large-scale study identified demographic, temporal, and clinical factors driving appointment non-adherence. Findings support actionable, subspecialty-specific strategies, including targeted reminders and navigation for first-time or young patients; increased 12-1 PM scheduling; intensive reminders for infrequent uveitis, comprehensive, and cataract visits; and allocation of late-afternoon slots for patients at high no-show risk and Saturdays for patients at high cancellation risk, noting higher no-show risk for uveitis and neuro-ophthalmology. These measures aim to improve adherence, efficiency, and patient-centred care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.