Table 1 Advantages/disadvantages of NMA and MAIC

 • Compares multiple treatments using published aggregate data

 • Can connect head-to-head RCTs and other RCTs via a common comparator (usually placebo)

 • Multiple simultaneous indirect paths

 • Based on relative effects, so randomisation is preserved

 • Established methodology

• Reduces heterogeneity between trials by matching the patient population

• Treatment effects have clear clinical context for interpretation

• Possible with and without placebo adjustment

• Long-term analyses feasible

 • Assumes trials are comparable in terms of design and population (low heterogeneity)

 • Requires a common comparator (connected evidence network)

 • Often only short-term comparison due to lack of a long-term connected network (placebo switching)

• Evolving method—NICE Technical Support Document published in December 2016 [2]

• Interferes with/breaks randomisation

• Reduced patient sample size

• Only a single indirect path

• Can only match observed characteristics, so heterogeneity may remain