OBJECTIVES: To collect information serve as a background for further activities of the eBayesMet project. To perform assessment  of the frequency of use the particular statistical methods for meta-analyses and indirect comparisons in existing systematic reviews and HTA reports. METHODS: Database of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) was searched for relevant reviews published between January 2009 and March 2010. RESULTS: The majority of meta-analyses were prepared by using direct statistical methods (97%). The most popular expression about fixed model was that fixed effect model with the Mantel-Haenszel was used (36%). In case of random model, information that method DerSimonian Laird was selected (38%) was used most often. Meta-analyses were prepared mostly based on randomized controlled trials (87%) and in 3% only on observational studies. In meta-analyses based on RCTs in 42% of cases authors mentioned that to make strong conclusion more studies were needed. Employing Bayesian methods was generally very rare. For indirect comparisons six methods were recognized and the most common type was MTC Bayesian Model (53%). Observational studies were not included in any identified analysis. In 40% of the review information indicating the need for additional studies was contained. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic reviews demonstrates a wide range of  approaches and methods for conducting meta-analyses and indirect comparison used in current practice. The most popular approach for indirect comparison is Bayesian included network and MTC (over 65%).  However performed analysis indicated that Bayesian approach is still marginal methods for performing direct comparison based on head to head studies.  Bayesian models have essential advantage: some additional  data can be included (as a prior distribution). This extra information can be for instance data from observational studies. However it should be emphasized, that in the analyzed random sample of  systematic reviews studies other than RCT were included in only 13%.