A comprehensive scientific review has delivered a crucial wake-up call for families and practitioners exploring alternative therapies for autism, revealing significant gaps in evidence and safety protocols for complementary treatments.

The most extensive quantitative analysis of its kind, conducted by researchers from Paris Nanterre University, Paris Cité University, and the University of Southampton, examined 248 meta-analyses spanning 200 clinical trials involving over 10,000 participants. Published in Nature Human Behaviour, the study meticulously evaluated 19 different complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) interventions, ranging from animal-assisted therapies to acupuncture, herbal medicine, music therapy, probiotics, and Vitamin D supplementation.

The research emerged from a critical need to understand treatment options for individuals with autism, who often experience challenges with communication, sensory processing, emotional understanding, and social interactions. Current statistics suggest that up to 90 percent of autistic individuals have attempted at least one alternative treatment, highlighting the urgent need for rigorous scientific assessment.

Professor Richard Delorme, Head of the Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Unit at Robert Debré Hospital in Paris, emphasized the importance of careful evaluation: "Many parents of autistic children, as well as autistic adults, turn to complementary and alternative medicines hoping they may help without unwanted side effects. However, it is necessary to carefully consider evidence from rigorous randomized trials before concluding that these treatments should be tried."

Using an innovative umbrella review methodology that combines findings from multiple meta-analyses, the research team provided a comprehensive overview of existing evidence. Dr. Corentin Gosling, Associate Professor at Paris Nanterre University and first study author, explained their approach: "Rather than looking at individual trials, we reviewed all available meta-analyses, which are a compilation of many trials. This allowed us to evaluate the full body of evidence across different treatments."

The findings were sobering: while a small number of treatments showed potential promise, most were supported by weak or low-quality evidence, rendering their reported effects unreliable. Even more concerning was the lack of safety data, with fewer than half of the treatments having been properly assessed for acceptability, tolerability, or potential adverse events.

In a proactive step, the researchers developed an online platform (https://ebiact-database.com) to help the public explore scientific evidence behind various CAIMs more transparently. Professor Samuele Cortese, NIHR Research Professor at the University of Southampton, stressed the importance of comprehensive evidence evaluation: "This study shows that when people want to know whether a treatment is effective, they shouldn't just look at one single study. It's essential to consider all the available evidence and how good that evidence is."

The study, funded by Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR), represents a significant milestone in understanding alternative autism therapies, providing valuable guidance for families, practitioners, and researchers committed to evidence-based approaches to supporting individuals with autism.