NC, not that it matters much, but was that not peer-reviewed prior to publication?

That particular online Journal doesn't give any information about whether the paper was peer reviewed either prior to or post publication. Its something you would have to ask the Journal editors. Its not unusual for papers to be published prior to peer review and then to be edited, amended or have comments added after peer review has happened. In scientific areas where there is very little research volume, peer review may not even happen. Even if trial results can be replicated, where this happens in very small scale trials and/or those with flawed or less than ideal methodologies, it is possible for coincidence to result in outcomes which appear on the face of it to be supportive of the initial trial results. Sadly, even today, it is not unusual to find research conducted with all sorts of flaws in the methodologies, processes, assumptions and the conclusions drawn by the researchers. This is where the likes of good quality, large scale meta-analysis research and especially the likes of the Cochrane Reviews are so valuable. Unfortunately people just assume that all published research is all carried out "properly", is peer-reviewed and can, therefore, whatever the conclusions are can always be relied upon but unfortunately, that just isn't the case. Not all research is created equal and not all journals that publish research have equal weight or standing.

When the story broke about this guy admitting that he had fabricated countless published papers and had completely made-up his trial results, it was big news, not just in the CRPS or pain management world (not all his research was on CRPS). He certainly set CRPS research back considerably.