Misinformation. This was not the pain results. This news which I note is not a presentation at ASCO, is only available on line. It validates that the U of WI's designed sham device can't be differentiated from the actual Calmare.
Now, the trial will go forward, knowing that the sham device isn't producing a false positive.
This data was essential to preclude potential criticism of the results of a larger trial.
To put it in simpler terms, in deference to those without any medical training, we know know that the sham is meaningful and that the results therefrom can't be challenged.
The summary of the abstract says, " Conclusions: In a small pilot study, MC5A was not significantly different from sham therapy for the primary outcome. The sham is feasible and provides a mechanism for future controlled studies with MC5A. Secondary endpoints, e.g. QST are forthcoming."
I looked at the abstract. If I extrapolated the daily changes to the total changes correctly, the sham patients improved by 25% and the treatment group by an average of 32%. With such a small number (7), this difference, while favorable to Calmare, isn't statistically significant. So, I am more in line with what Favela said, that the study value is in discussing the ability to do a sham trial. The study as listed in clintrials talked about 40 patients (clin trials website) so its not surprising the results don't show a statistical difference. With such small numbers, I wouldn't make much of the actual values or the differences between the group.
Seems like Dr. Campbell is offering a great service to the non-invasive pain management dialogue.