A large new review suggests that most complementary and alternative treatments for autism don’t have strong evidence behind them.
Researchers also found that safety often takes a back seat, with many of these therapies never properly checked for risks.
The analysis is one of the broadest looks yet at this topic, pulling together decades of research rather than focusing on a few small studies.
Who Did the Study and What They Looked At
The research was led by teams from Paris Nanterre University, Paris Cité University, and the University of Southampton. Their findings were published in the journal Nature Human Behaviour.
Instead of reviewing individual experiments, the scientists examined 248 meta-analyses.
Those summaries were based on about 200 clinical trials involving more than 10,000 participants in total.
Which Alternative Autism Treatments Were Reviewed
The researchers focused on complementary, alternative and integrative medicines, often called CAIMs.
These are therapies that sit outside standard medical care or are used alongside it.
In all, they reviewed 19 different approaches. These included animal-assisted therapy, acupuncture, herbal remedies, music therapy, probiotics and vitamin D supplements.
To make the findings easier to access, the team also created an online tool that lets people explore the evidence behind different treatments.
Why So Many People Try These Therapies
Living in a neurotypical world can be so difficult for many autistic kids and adults.
Depending on how a person’s autism presents, they may be unable to form speech, or, have limited expressive language.
Sensory issues can make being in the community overwhelming.
Autism is a spectrum, and thus, this neurotype presents differently from one affected individual to the next. There are three “levels” of autism:
- Level 1: minimal support needs
- Level 2: substantial support needs
- Level 3: very substantial support needs
Many families and autistic adults look for options beyond traditional treatments.
There are no drugs that are labeled for the management of autism, so “traditional” treatments for kids would include ABA: applied behavioral analysis, and for adults, that would range from day programming and job coaching to support groups.
Autistic people who do take medications are taking them for a co-occurring condition such as ADHD, depression or anxiety.
Some studies suggest that as many as nine out of 10 autistic people have tried at least one alternative or complementary therapy.
Professor Richard Delorme, a child and adolescent psychiatrist in Paris, says many people turn to these treatments hoping for benefits without harsh side effects.
But he cautions that hope should be balanced with solid scientific evidence.
How Researchers Judged the Evidence
To get a big-picture view, the team used an umbrella review. This approach combines results from multiple meta-analyses, which themselves summarize many individual trials.
Dr. Corentin Gosling, the study’s lead author, says this method helps avoid cherry-picking results from single studies.
Looking at the full body of evidence makes it easier to see which findings hold up and which don’t.
He also noted that the new online platform is meant to support shared decision-making between autistic people and healthcare providers.
Mostly Weak Results and Missing Safety Checks
A few treatments showed hints of possible benefit, but most were supported by low-quality or inconsistent evidence. That makes the reported effects unreliable.
Safety was another major concern. Fewer than half of the treatments had been properly evaluated for side effects, tolerability or whether people could realistically stick with them.
Professor Samuele Cortese from the University of Southampton stresses that single studies can be misleading.
To really understand whether a treatment works, he says, people need to look at all the evidence and how strong it is, not just one promising result.
