Over the past decades, research in the fields of both framing and health communication has grown exponentially. However, to date, no systematic review has been conducted about how framing - as a concept - has been used in health communication. The present study provides a systematic review of the current research, applying a quantitative content analysis to the published literature on framing in health communication. Articles published in peer-reviewed scientific journals (N = 316) were analyzed in order to describe common characteristics and topics, as well as the degree to which the sociological and psychological tradition of framing, different types of frames, and visual framing have been used. Furthermore, framing effect studies were examined to see whether they contained covariates, competitive frames, and/or gain and loss framing. The results reveal that the most common topics in the literature on framing in health communication were related to cancer, nutrition, and vaccination. Most articles use quantitative research designs, most commonly surveys with experimental designs; the majority of articles are based on the psychological tradition of framing. Thematic and generic frames occur almost equally, while the lack of research on visual frames is clearly noticeable. More than half of the effect studies test the effects of gain and loss framing, whereas competitive frames are under-studied. The results of this systematic review help to identify both current trends and research gaps on framing in health communication, and how it differs from framing in communication science overall - valuable information that can inform future research.