TL;DR: A study published Oct. 13, 2026, in OnScientia – International Journal of Business, Law & Health analyzed 1,785 game-based health trials on ClinicalTrials.gov and reported low public results posting outside the U.S.
Study publication answers registry-reporting question
OnScientia Press LLC published the analysis in OnScientia – International Journal of Business, Law & Health, according to the AP News press release titled "OnScientia Publishes Study Finding Few Game-Based Health Trials Outside the U.S. Post Results to Public Registry." The release was issued from Miami, Florida, and dated Oct. 13, 2026. The analysis covered 1,785 clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. The trials tested video games, serious games, exergames, or gamified programs as health interventions. The central finding highlighted in the release is that few game-based health trials outside the United States posted results to the public registry. The release subtitle states that the 1,785-trial study found no significant difference from behavioral trials overall but a sharp divide by trial location. The release text states that the game trials were completed as reliably as the comparison group.
What the 1,785 trials represent
The 1,785 trials in the OnScientia analysis were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, according to the AP News release. The interventions included video games tested as health interventions. The interventions included serious games tested as health interventions. The interventions included exergames tested as health interventions. The interventions included gamified programs tested as health interventions. ClinicalTrials.gov is the registry examined for registration and results posting in the study. The study was published in OnScientia – International Journal of Business, Law & Health. The publisher identified in the release is OnScientia Press LLC. The release location was Miami, Florida.
Overall comparison to behavioral trials
The AP News release states that game-based trials showed no significant difference from behavioral trials overall. The release states that completion reliability for the game trials was comparable to the behavioral-trial benchmark. The behavioral-trial comparison provides the overall context for the registry analysis. The release distinguishes that overall similarity from the location-specific result. The location-specific result concerns whether results were posted to the public registry. The public registry referenced in the release is ClinicalTrials.gov.
Location divide in results posting
The AP News release describes a sharp divide by trial location in results posting. Trials outside the United States posted results to the public registry infrequently, according to the release headline and summary. Trials in the United States are the contrasting location group implied by the headline finding. The finding focuses on posting of results to ClinicalTrials.gov. The finding does not state that the trials were not completed. Completion and results posting are separate registry concepts. The InsidePeptides guide titled "How to Find a Clinical Trial's Published Results" states that completed does not mean published. That guide was updated Oct. 10, 2026.
Why registry results and journal publication differ
The InsidePeptides guide states that posted registry results and a published journal article are different forms of reporting. The guide states that readers should check both the trial registry and publication databases. The guide identifies the Results Posted tab as the place for structured summary outcomes and adverse events when submitted and posted. The guide states that a Results Posted tab does not establish a peer-reviewed journal article. The guide identifies the registry Publications section as the place for listed or linked reports when available. The guide states that the Publications section does not establish a complete inventory of every paper. The guide states that PubMed and publisher records can provide a journal report, protocol, follow-up, or secondary analysis. The guide states that such a record does not by itself establish that the report answers the primary trial question.
How to verify a ClinicalTrials.gov record
The InsidePeptides guide states that an NCT number identifies a ClinicalTrials.gov record. The guide instructs readers to copy the complete identifier, including the eight digits after "NCT." The guide instructs readers to search the number directly and confirm intervention, sponsor, population, and primary outcomes. The guide states that a familiar acronym alone may be ambiguous. The guide states that registry records are supplied by sponsors or investigators and can change. The guide states that registration is not government endorsement of science or safety. The guide recommends recording the date checked. The guide uses NCT03548935 as a worked example for the STEP 1 trial. The guide identifies the original journal report for that example as Wilding and colleagues' 2021 semaglutide trial, with PMID 33567185 and DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa2032183. The guide states that the primary report randomized 1,961 adults without diabetes. The guide states that the example compared semaglutide with placebo alongside lifestyle intervention. The guide states that weight outcomes were measured at 68 weeks in that example.
Separate evidence of low results posting in digital therapeutics
A separate cross-sectional analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov examined digital therapeutics for musculoskeletal pain, according to the article titled "Targeting Musculoskeletal Pain with Digital Therapeutics: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov" in Natural Resources for Human Health. That article was published Oct. 10, 2026. The author listed is Fahad S. Alshehri. The structured search was performed in December 2025. A total of 52 registered trials met inclusion criteria. Most studies were interventional, at 94.2%, and focused on adult populations. Digital therapeutic strategies included virtual reality-based interventions. Strategies also included digital physical therapy and tele-rehabilitation platforms. Strategies also included multidisciplinary digital therapeutics. Strategies also included digital cognitive behavioral and exposure-based therapies. Strategies also included mobile application-based rehabilitation tools. Pain intensity was the most frequently assessed outcome at approximately 96% of trials. Psychological outcomes and functional disability measures were also assessed. Only 13% of studies evaluated opioid or analgesic use. While 40.4% of trials were completed, results were publicly available for only 9.6%. The article conclusion highlights limited reporting transparency. The article states that considerable heterogeneity in study design, outcome measures, and follow-up duration precluded quantitative meta-analysis.
Game-based education trial shows registry use in practice
A board-game education study registered with ClinicalTrials.gov illustrates how game interventions appear in the registry system, according to the BMC Medical Education article titled "Effects of a board game on dengue-related knowledge, attitudes, and confidence among primary healthcare nurses: a cluster randomized controlled trial." That research article was published Oct. 8, 2026, and is open access. The authors include Nuzul Sri Hertanti, Shu-Yu Kuo, Chien-Lin Kuo, Nai-Ying Ko, Min-Huey Chung, and Yeu-Hui Chuang. The study evaluated a dengue board game compared with lecture-based education. Sixteen primary healthcare units in Indonesia were randomized to board game-based education or lecture-based education. In total, 106 primary healthcare nurses participated, with 50 in the intervention group and 56 in the control group. The board game was informed by Kolb's Experiential Learning Theory and the ARCS motivational model. Knowledge, attitudes, and confidence were assessed at baseline, immediately after intervention, and at one-month follow-up. Data were analyzed using linear mixed models to account for clustering and repeated measurements. Dengue-related knowledge showed a significant group-by-time interaction with F equals 4.48 and p equals .01. Knowledge increased more in the intervention group immediately post-intervention, from mean 4.04 to 5.72, than in the control group, from mean 4.54 to 5.43. Group-by-time interactions were not statistically significant for attitudes, with F equals 2.57 and p equals .08, or confidence, with F equals 0.28 and p equals .76. Both groups showed similar improvements over time in attitudes and confidence. The trial registration listed is ClinicalTrials.gov NCT07028411. Registration occurred June 19, 2025, and first participant enrollment occurred Aug. 8, 2025.
What reporting gaps limit for consumers
The Natural Resources for Human Health analysis states that digital therapeutics represent a rapidly expanding and diverse therapeutic approach for musculoskeletal pain. That analysis addresses nociceptive, nociplastic, and biopsychosocial pain mechanisms. The analysis states that substantial gaps remain in outcome standardization. The analysis states that gaps remain in medication-related assessments. The analysis states that gaps remain in long-term evaluation. The analysis states that gaps remain in result reporting. The analysis recommends future research focused on harmonized outcome frameworks. The analysis recommends integration with pharmacological strategies. The analysis recommends improved transparency to support clinical implementation. The InsidePeptides guide states that missing reporting reduces what readers can assess. The guide states that missing reporting does not reveal the outcome by itself. The guide states that possible explanations include incomplete linking, publication delay, a paper indexed without the NCT number, a terminated study, or genuinely unreported results. The guide states that determining which explanation applies requires evidence. The guide advises describing the search precisely as not finding a matching results report in specified sources as of a date. The guide advises against converting that search outcome into a claim that the trial failed.
Publication context for the OnScientia finding
The OnScientia finding was announced through an AP News press release distributed by PR News IO. The release carries the publication date Oct. 13, 2026. The journal named is OnScientia – International Journal of Business, Law & Health. The publisher named is OnScientia Press LLC. The registry named is ClinicalTrials.gov. The intervention categories named are video games, serious games, exergames, and gamified programs. The total registry sample named is 1,785 trials. The overall comparison named is behavioral trials. The overall result named is no significant difference. The location result named is a sharp divide. The posting result named is few trials outside the U.S. posting results to the public registry.