Abstract Background: Helicobacter pylori (Hp) has been widely linked to various gastric pathologies, including gastric cancer (GC). Understanding how scientific production in this area has been structured, developed, and impacted is key to guiding future research and clinical strategies. To scientometrically explore the oncological literature related to Hp and GC, evaluating its volume, impact, collaboration, and thematic evolution between 2019 and 2025. Methods: A descriptive scientometric study with an exploratory approach was conducted. The search was performed in Scopus on June 7, 2025, using the strategy with Boolean operators and broad terms related to Hp and GC. Documents published between January 2019 and June 2025 were selected. The analysis was performed using SciVal, Bibliometrix (R), and VOSviewer, exploring performance indicators, collaborative networks, and thematic evolution. The report was guided by the Reporting and Measurement of Items for Bibliometric or Scientometric Studies in Health Sciences (RAMIBS) guideline. Results: A total of 4573 documents discussed were obtained from 1445 sources. The number of documents obtained each year declined on average (−8.74%), with an average of 14.09 citations per document (high collaboration rate at 20%), with high impact authors (P. Malfertheiner, h-index 99, countries such as China, Japan, and United States), and the leading journals of Helicobacter and Gastroenterology for productivity and impact in the field. The amount of output was highly concentrated based upon Bradford’s Law (46 core journals identified) and there was a strong bibliographic core (in co-citation), whilst thematic evolution showed that the focus of scholarship has evolved from virulence factors focused to integrative approaches around antimicrobial resistance, microbiome, and artificial intelligence. Conclusions: The field of research on Hp and GC is an established and collaborative domain currently undergoing a methodological change. The study presents the roadmap that provides guidance for future scientific production and making editorial and clinical decisions.
Benites-Goñi et al. (Sun,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: