Autism Therapies: Scientific Review & What Works

Paris — December 28, 2025 — A sweeping new analysis of research into treatments for autism reveals little evidence that commonly used complementary and alternative approaches are effective, and raises concerns about overlooked safety risks.

Autism Treatments: Why Hope Often Outpaces Evidence

A major review of over 10,000 participants finds limited support for popular therapies, and a troubling lack of safety data.

• Researchers examined 248 meta-analyses encompassing 200 clinical trials.
• Most complementary and alternative medicine (CAIM) interventions showed weak or low-quality evidence of benefit.
• Fewer than half of the treatments assessed had been evaluated for safety, tolerability, or adverse events.
• A free online platform was developed to help people evaluate the evidence behind different CAIMs.

For families navigating the complexities of autism, the search for effective support can be overwhelming. Up to 90 percent of autistic individuals have tried at least one complementary, alternative, or integrative medicine (CAIM) hoping for relief from challenges with communication, sensory processing, and repetitive behaviors. But do these treatments actually work, and are they safe?

What Treatments Were Studied?

The comprehensive study, published in Nature Human Behaviour, evaluated 19 different types of CAIMs, including animal-assisted therapies, acupuncture, herbal medicine, music therapy, probiotics, and Vitamin D supplementation. Researchers from Paris Nanterre University, Paris Cité University, and the University of Southampton meticulously reviewed the existing evidence.

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

What does the science say about autism treatments? The review found that while a small number of interventions showed *potential* benefit, the vast majority were supported by weak or low-quality evidence, making any reported effects unreliable.

An ‘Umbrella Review’ Approach

To get a broad picture of the research landscape, the team employed an “umbrella review” – a method that combines the results of multiple meta-analyses. “Rather than looking at individual trials, we reviewed all the available meta-analyses, which are a compilation of many trials,” explains Dr. Corentin Gosling, Associate Professor at the Paris Nanterre University and the study’s first author. “This allowed us to evaluate the full body of evidence across different treatments.”

Alongside the analysis, the researchers created a publicly accessible online platform designed to help individuals and practitioners navigate the scientific evidence surrounding CAIMs. The platform, available at https://ebiact-database.com, aims to empower informed decision-making.

Safety Concerns Remain

Perhaps the most concerning finding was the lack of safety data. Researchers discovered that fewer than half of the evaluated treatments had been properly assessed for acceptability, tolerability, or potential adverse events. This raises serious questions about the risks associated with these widely used interventions.

“This study shows that when people want to know whether a treatment is effective, they shouldn’t just look at one single study,” emphasizes Professor Samuele Cortese, NIHR Research Professor at the University of Southampton and co-senior author. “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.”

The study, titled Complementary, alternative and integrative medicine for autism: an umbrella review and online platform, was funded by Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR).