OBJECTIVES: The decision making process in Health Technology Assessments (HTA) is fundamentally guided by the use of systematic reviews. Nevertheless, rapid development of evidence-based practices across health care sectors has led to the development of new types of reviews. We aimed to compare the methodology of several types of reviews to determine the most appropriate questions that can be answered with each type of review. METHODS: A pragmatic search was performed in Pubmed and Google Scholar to identify publications discussing the use of systematic, scoping, and rapid reviews in answering biomedical questions. Additionally, the websites of the Cochrane Collaboration, The Joanna Briggs Institute, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality were searched for advice on the use of different review methodologies in the HTA process. RESULTS: The literature shows that systematic reviews have the most consistently applied methodology of the different types of literature review. Attempts have been made to formalise the processes by which rapid and scoping reviews are performed: systematic reviews answer a specific question within predefined criteria whereas rapid reviews use simplified systematic review methodology to answer a specific question in a reduced timescale. Finally, scoping reviews use applied systematic review methodology to provide a broad evaluation of existing evidence and can be used to help in the design of traditional systematic reviews. Considerable variability in the methodologies used in both scoping and rapid reviews was observed, but it was unclear to what extent standardisation of review methodology is practical or even desirable. However, the need for transparency in reporting the methodology used is clear. CONCLUSIONS: Different types of review are required at different stages of the HTA process. Using the correct methodology to answer a particular question can reduce both the cost and time required to develop submissions to HTA bodies.