Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become the cornerstone methodologies for integrating multi-source research data and enhancing the quality of evidence. Traditional meta-analyses often demonstrate limitations when handling multiple treatment options. Network meta-analysis (NMA) overcomes these limitations by constructing a network of evidence that encompasses various treatment options, allowing for the simultaneous comparison of both direct and indirect evidence across multiple treatment plans. This provides more comprehensive and precise support for clinical decision-making. This article comprehensively reviews the statistical principles of NMA, its three fundamental assumptions, and the statistical inference framework. It also critically analyzes the mainstream NMA software and packages currently available, such as R (including gemtc, netmeta, rjags, pcnetmeta), Stata (mvmeta, network), WinBUGS, SAS, ADDIS, and various online applications, highlighting their strengths, weaknesses, and suitable scenarios. This analysis provides researchers with a scientific and unified framework for conducting clinical studies and policy-making.