In a groundbreaking scientific review that offers crucial guidance for families navigating autism care, researchers have comprehensively analyzed hundreds of complementary and alternative medicine treatments, revealing significant gaps in evidence and safety protocols.

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 scrutinized 19 different interventions including animal-assisted therapies, acupuncture, herbal medicine, music therapy, probiotics, and Vitamin D supplementation.

Autism presents complex challenges for individuals, often impacting communication, emotional understanding, sensory processing, and social interactions. These difficulties lead many families to explore alternative treatments, with studies suggesting that up to 90 percent of autistic individuals have tried at least one complementary approach. Professor Richard Delorme from Robert Debré Hospital in Paris notes, "Many parents of autistic children, as well as autistic adults, turn to complementary and alternative medicines hoping they may help without unwanted side effects."

The research team employed an innovative umbrella review methodology, which allows for a comprehensive evaluation of existing research by combining findings from multiple meta-analyses. Dr. Corentin Gosling, the study's first 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."

Despite the widespread interest in alternative treatments, the study uncovered critical findings. Most interventions were supported by weak or low-quality evidence, making reported effects unreliable. Moreover, fewer than half of the treatments had been properly assessed for safety, acceptability, or potential adverse events. Professor Samuele Cortese, a co-senior author, emphasized 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."

As a proactive step, the research team developed an online platform (https://ebiact-database.com) to help the public more easily explore scientific evidence behind various complementary and alternative interventions. Funded by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR), this tool aims to support autistic individuals and practitioners in making informed treatment decisions.

The study serves as a critical reminder that while the desire to help and support autistic individuals is paramount, rigorous scientific evaluation remains the most reliable path to effective, safe interventions. By promoting transparency and evidence-based approaches, researchers continue to expand our understanding and support for the autism community.