I mean that the article on technology.org doesn't state the sample size, but still claims this has proven the effectiveness of the treatment. You would have a h

I mean that the article on technology.org doesn't state the sample size, but still claims this has proven the effectiveness of the treatment. You would have a hard time getting a treatment cleared for public use with those numbers. If you treat 6 people and they seem to go in some direction, then you have to put that into context by having some sort of control or else it is not possible to evaluate the degree to which the improvement was in patient selection or pure chance. I think that OPs article overstates the significance at this point and should have highlighted that further studies are necessary.