Skip to content

Latest clinical findings

We were one of the first digital solutions to have clinical validation and have continued to build on this foundation. The Ohio State University’s peer-reviewed analysis determined Sinasprite delivered a “clinically relevant improvement,” which meant a player was productive two more days each week than before the intervention (i.e., playing Sinasprite).

Recent internal findings show that within six weeks:

  • 34% of users reported a clinically relevant improvement;*
  • 19% of users reported a minimally clinically important difference (MCID) in anxiety;
  • 34% of users reported a clinically relevant improvement; and
  • 12% of users reported an MCID in depression.

Players with moderate to severe anxiety or depression reported the most improvement. This is important because clinicians tell us that this population has a hard time showing up to therapy but is open to using an intervention on their phone.

 For comparison purposes, an MCID requires a 4-point improvement, whereas a clinically relevant improvement requires a 2-point improvement. For reference, pharmaceutical therapeutics take a minimum of six weeks to show any improvements. Both therapeutics – our game and traditional prescriptions – base clinical results on two industry-standard screening tools, the Patient Health Questionnaire 8 (PHQ-8) for depression and General Anxiety Disorder 7-Item (GAD-7) for anxiety. Other digital therapeutics are working toward this level of clinical validation.  

We’re completing our data collection, in alignment with research best practices, and expect to publish full findings later this year.

Blog comments