Table 5.

Summary of key inputs and outputs

	Frequentist approach	Bayesian approach
Is the network of evidence sparse? (<5 studies)	Works well	Does not work well for standard non-informative priors but works well for informative priors Non-informative priors could result in unrealistically wide credible intervals
Is prior specification justified?	No priors used—based solely on observed data	Non-informative if enough data are available, informative in the case of sparse data, choice of suitable distributions and additional information such as expert clinician opinion
Are there few large studies of high quality?	Consider FE model	Consider FE model
Are there country-specific regulations?	Required by German G-BA and Australian PBAC	Preferred by NICE in the UK
Interpretation	Statistical significance or the absence thereof	One treatment favorable/unfavorable over another treatment, or two treatments comparable Often falsely interpreted as significant or not significant; common misconception

FE fixed effects, G-BA Federal Joint Committee, NICE National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, PBAC Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee