We’ve updated our Privacy Policy to make it clearer how we use your personal data. We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. You can read our Cookie Policy here.
Stay up to date on the topics that matter to you
Complete the form below to unlock access to ALL audio articles.
Complementary and alternative treatments for autism are widely used, often seen as safe and natural options for improving quality of life. In fact, research suggests that up to 90% of autistic people try these interventions at some point. But do they work – and are they safe?
A new umbrella review published in Nature Human Behaviour challenges common assumptions: not only is there no strong evidence that these treatments improve core autism symptoms, but safety is rarely assessed. The study provides the most comprehensive analysis to date, examining 248 meta-analyses that encompass 200 clinical trials and over 10,000 participants.
To understand what this means for autistic individuals, families and clinicians, Technology Networks spoke with the study’s lead researcher, Dr. Corentin J. Gosling, an associate professor at Paris Nanterre University. Gosling explained why they undertook this work, what they found and how a new online database tool could help guide evidence-based decisions.
Why did your team decide to conduct this umbrella review on complementary, alternative and integrative medicine (CAIM) for autism, and why is this issue so important now?
The term “CAIM” covers a lot of ground. Can you briefly explain what kinds of treatments fall under this umbrella?
Our study defined CAIM based on three criteria: whether an intervention originates outside of Western medicine, whether it is considered a standard treatment for a specific condition and whether it is delivered by practitioners outside of conventional medical institutions. This covers a wide variety of approaches.
Our review specifically investigated 19 different CAIMs, including “mind-body medicine” (such as sensory integration therapy), “natural product-based therapies” (such as special diets or vitamin supplementation), “manipulative and body-based practices” (such as physical activity interventions) and “energy medicine interventions” (such as acupuncture).
We deliberately avoid highlighting any specific intervention as particularly “promising.” Even when some studies suggest larger effect sizes, the accuracy of these estimates is often highly uncertain.
Our goal is to support careful, balanced and informed decision-making rather than steering individuals toward particular choices.
Oxytocin was relatively well-studied across age groups, representing the intervention with the highest quality of evidence in our review, even though this evidence did not support a large efficacy for core autism symptoms.
Conversely, many popular interventions, such as special diets or animal-assisted therapy, had rarely been studied.
The most common weaknesses were imprecision – meaning a low number of participants leading to imprecise estimates – and a high risk of bias from methodological flaws in the original trials.
To address this, future research should be carefully designed, using appropriate outcome measures to minimize bias. Such studies must also include comprehensive safety monitoring to provide a clearer understanding of the potential benefits and risks of CAIM for individuals with autism.
