Autism: ‘No Strong Evidence’ That Alternative Interventions Work

A quantitative review into complementary, alternative and integrative medicines (CAIMs) for autism has found no strong evidence to support their use.

Furthermore, the study by researchers in Paris and the UK discovered that the safety of these interventions was rarely assessed.

According to the team, the use of CAIMs by people with autism is highly prevalent, with up to 90 percent reporting having used such interventions at least once in their lifetime.

In the study, the researchers assessed a total of 248 existing studies, including 200 clinical trials involving more than 10,000 participants.

They looked at 19 types of “treatment”, including acupuncture, animal-assisted interventions, herbal medicine, music therapy, physical activity, probiotics, sensory integration and Vitamin D.

Systematic reviews have found that special diets and dietary supplements—also included in the study’s list—are among the most commonly used CAIM interventions.

The team also created an online platform to make it easier for people to see the evidence they generated on different CAIMs.

In the U.S., around 1 in 31 children and 1 in 45 adults live with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Not an illness, it is a developmental condition in which people’s brains work differently. It can often lead to difficulties in communication and social interaction.

Many parents of autistic children and adults with the condition turn to CAIMs “hoping they may help with unwanted side effects,” explained paper author professor Richard Delorme, Head of the Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Unit at Robert Debré Hospital in Paris, in a statement.

“However, it is necessary to carefully consider evidence from rigorous randomized trials before concluding that these treatments should be tried.”

“In our work, we consistently referred to these as CAIM interventions rather than ‘treatments.’ Some people use them as complements to other approaches, while others may use them as alternatives,” Corentin Gosling, professor at the Paris Nanterre University and study author, told Newsweek.

“Our work does not suggest that autism requires ‘treatment.’ Instead, we take a neutral stance, emphasizing the importance of shared decision-making between autistic people and healthcare professionals.”

The team’s online platform, he explained, is not intended to recommend specific interventions, but to present scientific evidence so individuals may make informed choices.

“The widespread use of CAIMs among autistic people, combined with the scarcity of reliable, evidence-based resources on these interventions” led to the research, Gosling explained.

In their study, the team conducted an umbrella review to pull together different evidence and gain an overall “big picture” summary.

“Rather than looking at individual trials, we reviewed all the available meta-analyses, which are a compilation of many trials. This allowed us to evaluate the full body of evidence across different treatments,” Gosling explained.

“Importantly, we also developed a free and easy-to-use online platform, which we will continue to test. Ultimately, we hope this tool will support autistic people and practitioners in choosing the best treatment together.”

While some interventions showed potential, most studies were supported by weak or poor-quality evidence, so the effects are not considered reliable, according to the researchers.

Safety assessments were missing for most treatments, with less than half of CAIMs having had any evaluation of the acceptability, tolerability or adverse events.

“We hope that our platform, by supporting shared and informed decision-making, will empower autistic people to identify the interventions that best align with their needs and preferences,” Gosling said.

“This study shows that when people want to know whether a treatment is effective, they shouldn’t just look at one single study,” Samuele Cortese, professor at the University of Southampton and study author, added in a statement.

“It’s essential to consider all the available evidence and how good that evidence is. Drawing conclusions from one low-quality study can be misleading.”

Do you have a tip on a health story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have a question about autism? Let us know via health@newsweek.com.

References

Gosling, C. J., Boisseleau, L., Solmi, M., Sandbank, M., Jurek, L., Nourredine, M., Porcu, G., Murgia, E., Radua, J., Fusar-Poli, P., Kovarski, K., Caparos, S., Cartigny, A., Cortese, S., & Delorme, R. (2025). Complementary, alternative and integrative medicine for autism: An umbrella review and online platform. Nature Human Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02256-9

Höfer, J., Hoffmann, F., & Bachmann, C. (2016). Use of complementary and alternative medicine in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review. Autism. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361316646559