Skip to content

Unvalidated Methods for Managing Autism Remain Controversial

In-depth examination of 248 comprehensive studies on non-traditional therapeutic approaches (CAIMs) for autism yielded no substantial proof validating their efficacy.

Unvalidated Approaches to Autism Management Prevail Unsubstantiated
Unvalidated Approaches to Autism Management Prevail Unsubstantiated

Unvalidated Methods for Managing Autism Remain Controversial

In the realm of healthcare, the use of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) has gained significant traction, particularly among individuals with autism. A staggering 90% of autistic individuals have reported using CAIM at least once in their lifetime.

To delve deeper into this prevalent trend, an umbrella review was conducted, with the results being presented on an interactive platform accessible at ebiact-database.com. This review identified 53 meta-analytic reports, enabling the conduct of 248 meta-analyses exploring the effects of 19 different CAIMs in autism.

However, a crucial area for future research remains the safety of these alternative therapies, as their safety has rarely been evaluated.

The review, unfortunately, did not find any high-quality evidence to support the efficacy of any CAIM for core or associated symptoms of autism. While several CAIMs showed promising results, these were supported by very low-quality evidence.

The study, although extensive, does not provide information about which university conducted the recently published project on CAIM in autism. Despite this gap, the umbrella review and the web platform it has spawned serve as valuable resources for ongoing research and discussions in the field.

Read also: