There is no strong evidence for alternative treatments for autism, according to a study.

The most comprehensive quantitative review of research on complementary and alternative treatments for autism has found no strong evidence to support their use, and the safety of these treatments has rarely been evaluated.

A new study from Paris Nanterre University (France), Paris Cité University (France) and the University of Southampton (UK), published in Nature Human Behaviour, evaluated 248 meta-analyses , including 200 clinical trials involving more than 10,000 people.

Researchers studied the efficacy and safety of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicines (CAIM) for treating autism. They analyzed 19 types of treatments , including animal-assisted interventions, acupuncture, herbal medicine, music therapy , probiotics, and vitamin D.

The team also created an online platform to facilitate access to the evidence they generated on different CAIMs. Autistic individuals may struggle with communication , understanding how others think or feel, feeling overwhelmed by sensory information, becoming nervous in unfamiliar environments, and engaging in repetitive behaviors.

All of this can interfere with their quality of life, and up to 90% report having used CAM at least once in their lives. "Many parents of autistic children, as well as autistic adults, turn to complementary and alternative medicines in the hope that they can help without unwanted side effects ," said Professor Richard Delorme, head of the Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Unit at the Robert Debré Hospital in Paris.

"However, the evidence from rigorous randomized trials needs to be carefully considered before concluding that these treatments should be tried," he noted. The researchers conducted a global review, a type of study that compiles evidence to provide an overall summary of the situation.

"Poor quality"

Dr. Corentin Gosling, associate professor at Paris Nanterre University and first author of the study, notes that rather than analyzing individual trials, they reviewed all available meta-analyses. This allowed them to assess the full body of evidence for different treatments.

"Importantly, we've also developed a free, easy-to-use online platform , which we will continue to test. Ultimately, we hope this tool will help autistic people and professionals choose the best treatment together," he added.

The researchers emphasize that while some treatments showed potential , most studies were based on "weak or poor-quality " evidence, so the effects are unreliable. They consider it "concerning" that safety assessments were lacking for most treatments, as fewer than half of the CAIMs had been evaluated for acceptability, tolerability, or adverse effects.

For his part, Samuele Cortese, NIHR Research Professor at the University of Southampton and co-senior author, concludes that this study demonstrates that, "when people want to know if a treatment is effective, they should not rely solely on a single study. It is essential to consider all the available evidence and its quality. Drawing conclusions from a low-quality study can be misleading ."