Canvas Framework for Performing Systematic Reviews Analysis

Fernando Almeida


The systematic review of the literature is a fundamental methodology for analyzing critically the existing literature on a given research theme. They are designed to be methodical, replicable and guide the author in identifying the main lines of investigation and conclusions in each scientific domain and, in addition, help them in the identification of new directions of research. However, the systematic review process is typically viewed as too heterogeneous, complex and time-consuming. In this sense, it is pertinent to propose a new approach for conducting systematic reviews that may be more agile, not only in terms of development, but also in the analysis of the results of a systematic review process. This article presents a canvas framework for conducting a systematic review composed of nine blocks and based on a set of identified good practices found in the literature, in which it is possible to easily identify all the steps of the process, options taken, and main results.


Systematic review; scientific methodology; model canvas; literature review; narrative review

Full Text:



Baker, J. (2016). The Purpose, Process, and Methods of Writing a Literature Review. AORN Journal, 103(3), 265-269.

Byrne, J. (2016). Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 1(12), 1-4.

Chairmani, A., Caldwell, D., Li, T., Higgins, J., and Salanti, G. (2017). Additional considerations are required when preparing a protocol for a systematic review with multiple interventions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 83(3), 65-74.

Cronin, P., Ryan, F., and Coughlan, M. (2008). Undertaking a literature review: a step-by-step approach. British Journal of Nursing, 17(1), 38-43.

Cullis, P, Gudlaugsdottir, K., and Andrews, J. (2017). A systematic review of the quality of conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric surgery. Plos One, 12(4): e0175213.

Dijkers, M. (2015). What is a Scoping Review? KT Update, 4(1), 1-5.

Ferrari, R. (2015). Writing Narrative Style Literature Reviews. Medical Writing, 24(4), 230-235.

Fink, A. (2014). Conducting Research Literature Reviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Galvan, J. (2006). Writing literature reviews: a guide for students of the behavioral sciences. Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.

Gavrilova, T., Alsufyev, A., and Yanson, A. (2014). Modern Notation of Business Models: Visual Trend. Foresight-Russia, 8(2), 56-70.

Gilford, R. (2016). Research Methods for Environmental Psychology. New Jersey: Wiley.

Gopalakrishnan, S., and Ganeshkumar, P. (2013). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: understanding the best evidence in primary healthcare. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 2(1), 9-14.

Gough, D., Oliver, S., and Thomas, J. (2013). Learning from Research: Systematic Reviews for Informing Policy Decisions. Alliance for Useful Evicence. Available online at: (accessed on 14th November 2017).

Grant, M., and Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26, 91-108.

Green, B., Johnson, C., and Adams, A. (2006). Writing Narrative Literature Reviews for Peer-Reviewed Journals: Secrets of the Trade. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 5(3), 101-117.

Higgins, J., and Green, S. (2008). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. New Jersey: Wiley.

Katikireddi, S., Egan, M., and Petticrew, M. (2014). How do systematic reviews incorporate risk of bias assessments into the synthesis of evidence? A methodological study. Journal of Epidemiol Community Health, 12, 1-7.

Khan, K., Kunz, R., Kleijnen, J., and Antes, G. (2003). Five steps to conducting a systematic review. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 96(3), 118-121.

Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for Undertaking Systematic Reviews. Joint Technical Report, Computer Science Department, Keele University (TR/SE- 0401) and National ICT Australia Ltd. (0400011T.1).

Klamer, P., Bakker, C., and Gruis, V. (2017). Research bias in judgement bias studies – a systematic review of valuation judgement literature. Journal of Property Research, 2(79), 1-19.

Liberati, A., Altman, D., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P., Ioannidis, J., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P., Kleijnen, J., Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ, 339.

Mallett, R., Hagen.Zanker, J., Slater, R., Duvendack, M. (2012). The benefits and challenges of using systematic reviews in international development research. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 4(3), 445-455.

McHugh, M. (2012). Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276-282.

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Telzlaff, J., and Altman, D. (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement, Plos Med, 6(7): e1000097.

Okoli, C., and Schabram, K. (2010). A Guide to Conducting a Systematic Literature Review of Information Systems Research. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 10(26), 1-49.

Osterwalder, A., and Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.

Oyedele, A. (2016). Emerging market global business model innovatio. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 18(1), 53-62.

Pae, C. (2015). Why Systematic Review rather than Narrative Review? Psychiatry Investigation, 12(3), 417-419.

Pautasso, M. (2013). Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Literature Review. Plos Computational Biology, 9(7), 1-6.

Randolph, J. (2009). A Guide to Writing the Dissertation Literature Review. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(13), 1-13.

Rivero, T., Nu-ez, L., Pires, E., and Bueno, O. (2015). ADHD rehabilitation through video gaming: a systematic review using PRISMA guidelines of the current findings and the associated risk of bias. Frontiers Psychiatry, 6(151), 1-16.

Rother, E. (2007). Systematic literature review X narrative review. Acta Paulista de Enfermagem, 20(2), 1-2.

Sungur, M., and Seyhan, T. (2013). Writing references and using citation management software. Turkish Journal of Urology, 39, 25-32.

Swartz, M. (2011). The PRISMA Statement: A Guideline for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Journal of Pediatry Health Care, 25, 1-2.

Teece, D. (2010). Business Models, Business Strategu and Innovation. Long Range Planning, 43, 172-194.

Toews, L. (2016). Compliance of systematic reviews in veterinary journals with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) literature search reporting guidelines. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 105(3), 233-239.

Turner, L., Boutron, I., Hróbjartsson, A., Altman, D., and Moher, D. (2013). The evolution of assessing bias in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: celebrating methodological contributions of the Cochrane Collaboration. Systematic Reviews, 2(79), 1-8.

Tursunbayeva, A., Bunduchi, R., Franco, M., and Pagliari, C. (2017). Human resource information systems in health care: a systematic evidence review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 24(3), 633-654.

Welch, V., Petticrew, M., Petkovic, J., Moher, D., Waters, E., and White, H. (2016). Extending the PRISMA statement to equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-E 2012): explanation and elaboration. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 8(2), 287-324.

Yuan, Y., and Hunt, R. (2009). Systematic reviews: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Am J Gastroenterol, 104(5), 1086-1092.

Zhang, Y., Huang, J., and Du, L. (2017). The top-cited systematic reviews/meta-analyses in tuberculosis research: A PRISMA-compliant systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis. Medicine, 96(6), 1-5.

Abstract Views

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM

This journal is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NonDerivs 4.0 Internacional License.

Universitat Politècnica de València

e-ISSN: 2341-2593