The article reviews evidence-based comprehensive treatments for early autism, emphasizing the need for rigorous research to determine effective interventions. It discusses the limitations of current evidence, noting that while early intervention shows promise, long-term outcomes remain unclear. Lovaas's treatment, once considered a "well-established" intervention, now meets only "possibly efficacious" criteria due to methodological limitations. The review includes several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other studies evaluating various interventions. The Jocelyn et al. (1998) study, a Type 1 RCT, showed significant improvements in language development for children with autism. Drew et al. (2002) found that a home-based intervention led to significant language gains, though initial IQ differences may have influenced results. Aldred et al. (2004) demonstrated improvements in communication and social skills for younger children with autism. Smith et al. (2000) replicated Lovaas's findings, showing IQ gains but noting that many children still had developmental delays. Sallows and Graupner (2005) found mixed results, with some children showing normal functioning while others did not. Other studies, including Eikeseth et al. (2002) and Cohen et al. (2006), also showed positive outcomes for Lovaas's treatment, though with varying degrees of success. The review highlights the importance of rigorous methodology and the need for further research to determine the most effective interventions. While Lovaas's treatment is considered "well-established" based on significant IQ gains, its effectiveness for all children remains uncertain. The article concludes that more research is needed to clarify the best practices for early autism intervention.The article reviews evidence-based comprehensive treatments for early autism, emphasizing the need for rigorous research to determine effective interventions. It discusses the limitations of current evidence, noting that while early intervention shows promise, long-term outcomes remain unclear. Lovaas's treatment, once considered a "well-established" intervention, now meets only "possibly efficacious" criteria due to methodological limitations. The review includes several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other studies evaluating various interventions. The Jocelyn et al. (1998) study, a Type 1 RCT, showed significant improvements in language development for children with autism. Drew et al. (2002) found that a home-based intervention led to significant language gains, though initial IQ differences may have influenced results. Aldred et al. (2004) demonstrated improvements in communication and social skills for younger children with autism. Smith et al. (2000) replicated Lovaas's findings, showing IQ gains but noting that many children still had developmental delays. Sallows and Graupner (2005) found mixed results, with some children showing normal functioning while others did not. Other studies, including Eikeseth et al. (2002) and Cohen et al. (2006), also showed positive outcomes for Lovaas's treatment, though with varying degrees of success. The review highlights the importance of rigorous methodology and the need for further research to determine the most effective interventions. While Lovaas's treatment is considered "well-established" based on significant IQ gains, its effectiveness for all children remains uncertain. The article concludes that more research is needed to clarify the best practices for early autism intervention.