Network meta-analysis (NMA) | Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) |
---|---|
Advantages | |
• 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 |
Disadvantages | |
• 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 |