This study did not require ethical approval because it relied solely on the collection and analysis of secondary data from publicly available scientific databases.

The study was conducted using data retrieved from the Scopus database. Data collection was performed on October 8, 2024, and included publications from 2019 to 2024.

This scientometric analysis was elaborated and reported according to the recommendations of the Reporting and Measurement of Items for Bibliometric or Scientometric Studies in Health Sciences (RAMIBS) [10]. Scientometric analysis is particularly appropriate for pathogens such as C. canimorsus, which have low global incidence but high clinical severity, because traditional epidemiological data may be limited. By mapping publication trends, collaboration networks, and thematic evolution, scientometric approaches help identify knowledge gaps, research priorities, and influential contributors in the field.

The search formula used was: TITLE-ABS-KEY(“Capnocytophaga canimorsus”) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY(“sepsis” OR “septic shock” OR “endocarditis” OR “meningitis” OR “abscesses” OR “cellulitis” OR “septic arthritis” OR “peritonitis” OR “gangrene” OR “acute renal failure” OR “pneumonia”), identifying a total of 104 relevant documents.

A descriptive, observational study was conducted, employing a comprehensive search in the Scopus database using the search formula detailed above. The retrieved data covered the period from 2019 to 2024.

The inclusion criteria comprised peer-reviewed articles, reviews, case reports, and other scientific documents in English directly addressing C. canimorsus infections in human medicine between 2019 and 2024. Exclusion criteria included conference abstracts without full text, non-indexed sources, and publications unrelated to the study topic. To ensure data integrity, duplicate records retrieved from Scopus were systematically identified and removed based on DOI matching and metadata verification, thereby ensuring that each document was counted only once in the analysis.

For the scientometric analyses, the records retrieved from Scopus were exported in comma-separated values format to ensure standardized handling and compatibility across platforms. The database was uploaded to SciVal for classification based on bibliometric indicators, including scientific output, views, citations per publication, and author h-index. The file was then uploaded to Bibliometrix in R Studio version 4.3.2 (https://posit.co/download/ rstudio-desktop) for further analysis, where parameters were explicitly defined to improve reproducibility. The association strength clustering algorithm was used for keyword co-occurrence analysis, with a minimum keyword frequency of two occurrences per cluster to reduce noise and highlight thematic structures. Statistical and graphical packages within R Studio were used to generate visualizations of keyword networks, thematic evolution, and international collaboration.

Document selection and extraction were conducted after searching Scopus using a predefined search formula. Relevant documents were exported in comma-separated values format for processing. The dataset was initially analyzed in SciVal (https://www.scival.com/home) based on bibliometric indicators, including scholarly output, views, citations per publication, and author h-index. Subsequently, the dataset was analyzed in Bibliometrix within R Studio using statistical and visualization packages such as ggplot2, igraph, and base graphics to perform keyword co-occurrence mapping, thematic evolution analysis, and evaluation of international collaboration networks.

From 2019 to 2024, 104 documents were analyzed, originating from 70 different countries. An annual growth rate of −5.59% indicated a slight decline in scientific production on C. canimorsus infections. The documents had a mean age of 2.64 years and an average of 3.17 citations per paper, with a total of 1,836 references. These works involved 503 authors and 223 keywords, indicating thematic diversity but limited international collaboration (6.73%). Most papers (~4.95 co-authors per study) were multi-authored, while only three were single-authored. Document type distribution showed that original articles (n = 80) predominated, followed by letters and notes (~8) and reviews (n = 9), indicating that case-based papers dominate this research area (Table 1).

The observed negative annual growth rate may be attributed to the rarity of reported cases of C. canimorsus, which limits opportunities for large-scale studies. Alternatively, this trend may reflect delays in indexing within databases such as Scopus, where recent publications may not yet be fully captured.

A total of 101 publications were distributed across CiteScore quartiles, demonstrating heterogeneous journal performance. Quartile 3 accounted for the majority (n = 39), followed by quartile 2 (n = 30) and quartile 1 (n = 21), while quartile 4 included only 11 publications. Year-wise analysis showed slight fluctuations, with peaks in 2020 and 2022 (20 and 21 publications, respectively) and a decline in 2024 (12 publications). Notably, quartile 3 journals dominated in 2022 (13 publications), suggesting a preference for mid-tier outlets during that period, whereas quartile 1 journals regained traction in 2024 with five publications. Overall, these findings highlight variability in journal impact and a tendency toward publication in mid-range sources (Table 2).

Analysis of Scopus-indexed sources revealed heterogeneity in journal impact. BMC Infectious Diseases had the highest number of publications (n = 8) and also showed a high CiteScore (6.5) with 5.6 citations per paper. BMJ Case Reports (n = 7) and IDCases (n = 6) had lower CiteScores (1.4 and 2.6, respectively), consistent with their focus on clinical case reporting rather than high-impact research. However, the highest citation impact was observed in the European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, with 13.5 citations per paper and the highest CiteScore (10.4). Other journals, such as Antibiotics and APMIS, exhibited relatively high CiteScores but lower citation averages, indicating variability in visibility and scientific impact (Table 3).

Several authors contributed to research on C. canimorsus, particularly from Spain. Calvo-Muro, Del-Arco, and Fernández-Vecilla each published two papers with moderate citation averages (1.5) and h-index values of 2 and 3, respectively. Other contributors included Duployez and Loiëz, each with two publications and low citation impact (0.5), although Loiëz had a relatively high h-index (18). In contrast, Herget-Rosenthal and Rasmussen demonstrated higher impact, with citation averages of 15.5 and 3.5 and h-index values of 32 and 35, respectively, identifying them as leading contributors in this field (Table 4).

The distribution of publications according to Bradford’s law identified core journals and zones of influence. Zone 1 included BMC Infectious Diseases (8 publications), BMJ Case Reports (7), and IDCases (6), representing the core sources where research is most concentrated. Zone 2 included the European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases and the European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences, each with two publications. Zone 3 comprised sources such as Greene’s Infectious Diseases of the Dog and Cat, Fifth Edition, with one publication. In this classification, Zone 1 accounted for approximately one-third of total publications (n = 21), Zone 2 represented the second third (n = 20), and Zone 3 included the remaining sources (n = 19), reflecting the dispersion of scientific output across journals (Figure 1).

Thematic evolution analysis showed a shift in research focus from C. canimorsus and meningitis between 2019 and 2024. Early studies primarily focused on infections and dog bites, gradually transitioning toward meningitis and bacteremia while maintaining consistent attention on C. canimorsus. From 2022 onward, research increasingly concentrated on zoonosis, highlighting evolving priorities in infectious disease research (Figure 2).

Keyword co-occurrence analysis revealed multiple clusters, with the green cluster (C. canimorsus) representing the largest node, indicating that this term was central and highly interconnected with other research themes. The blue cluster (meningitis) and the red cluster (dog bite) were the next most prominent, reflecting their importance in the research landscape (Figure 3).

The cross-country collaboration map demonstrated several notable collaborations in recent studies. Spain and Belgium led with two collaborations. Additional collaborations were observed between Belgium and Haiti, Italy and Switzerland, and Qatar and Pakistan, each occurring once. Other collaborations included Sweden and Denmark, as well as the United States and Uganda, each at a frequency of one.

These findings indicate geographic diversity in international research collaboration. When analyzed by continent, Europe accounted for the majority of collaborations, followed by North America, Asia, and Africa, with limited contributions. In contrast, Latin America and Oceania showed no scientific production or collaborations in this dataset, highlighting regional gaps. Furthermore, participation from countries such as Haiti, Uganda, and Pakistan indicates some involvement from low-income regions; however, these remain underrepresented compared to high-income countries, which dominate the collaborative landscape. This imbalance underscores the need to strengthen global research networks and promote the inclusion of resource-limited settings in zoonotic research (Figure 4).

The study of the literature on C. canimorsus infections from 2019 to 2024 was purposefully selected to focus on the most recent scientific publications and to observe trends in research directions across borders. This period represents a phase of considerable dynamism in global science, characterized by growing awareness of zoonotic infections and by the COVID-19 pandemic’s influence on research and publication practices. Although case reports and scientific documentation of C. canimorsus infections have been available for several decades, the present study focused on the 2019–2024 period to capture more recent trends.

The gradual thematic shift from infections and dog bites toward zoonosis observed in these studies reflects broader One Health drivers at the global level. Similar to the impact of COVID-19 on infectious disease awareness, the increase in dog ownership worldwide, along with advancements in diagnostics and biotechnology, has contributed to re-framing subsequent studies of C. canimorsus within a zoonotic context.

Interpretation of strong collaborations, such as those between Spain and Belgium, should be approached with caution. While these countries possess established expertise and research infrastructure, their dominance also highlights the need for broader multinational collaboration. Zoonotic threats require coordinated global responses across diverse health systems, emphasizing the importance of expanding international research networks.

The species C. canimorsus, although less studied compared to other zoonotic pathogens, has gained increasing attention due to its role in severe human infections, particularly following animal bites or scratches. Environmental factors, including close contact between humans and domestic animals, combined with challenges in early diagnosis and treatment, have contributed to the growing interest in understanding this pathogen [3, 11].

Bibliometric studies are widely used to assess characteristics of scientific literature within specific disciplines. Scopus, recognized for its comprehensive database of publications and citations, provides tools for analyzing authorship and citation patterns. Compared with other databases, such as Web of Science, Scopus includes a broader range of references and publications, offering a more extensive perspective [12]. Consequently, it has been widely used in previous bibliometric studies focusing on infectious diseases in human medicine [13, 14].

During the study period, the proportion of articles published in journals indexed in the first two quartiles was comparable to that in the lower quartiles. This suggests that novelty and scientific quality remain key determinants for publication in high-impact journals [15]. Furthermore, the absence of publications in the lowest quartile during the last two years may indicate increasing relevance and scientific value of recent research in this field.

Additionally, among journals with the highest number of publications, approximately half were classified in the first or second quartile, ensuring broader visibility and dissemination. High-quartile journals are more likely to reach a wider scientific audience and provide estimates closer to true values [16]. Therefore, careful journal selection is essential to maximize the impact and relevance of research findings, particularly in specialized fields such as infectious diseases and microbiology. Notably, the inclusion of a cardiology-related journal may be explained by the high mortality associated with C. canimorsus endocarditis, which has been reported to be approximately 25% [17].

Among the top 10 authors, all contributed two publications; however, four were co-authors of a systematic review of case reports that received 21 citations. This observation is consistent with evidence that systematic reviews tend to receive more citations than narrative reviews, even when published in the same journal [18]. Systematic reviews synthesize large volumes of evidence and are considered robust resources for clinicians and researchers.

Thematic evolution analysis demonstrated that early research primarily focused on case reports, particularly involving immunosuppressed patients following animal bites, meningitis, and superficial infections [19, 20]. In more recent years, the focus has shifted toward evidence synthesis and diagnostic studies. However, clustering patterns indicate that case report production remains ongoing. The growing global attention to zoonoses, particularly in the context of emerging infectious diseases, likely contributes to this thematic shift [21].

Spain emerged as the leading country in international collaboration in this field. This finding aligns with previous bibliometric analyses showing that a substantial proportion of Spanish research in infectious diseases involves international collaboration [22]. Such collaborations provide benefits, including shared expertise, access to funding, and increased opportunities for joint publications.

International collaborations also enable inclusion of diverse populations, enhancing generalizability and expanding the scope of infectious disease research [23–25]. Despite a high proportion of studies originating from the American and European regions, limited collaboration between them has been reported, highlighting the need to strengthen intercontinental research networks.

Several limitations should be considered. First, the available literature on C. canimorsus remains limited, emphasizing the need for primary studies to generate stronger evidence. Second, reliance on a single database (Scopus) may have resulted in the omission of relevant publications indexed elsewhere. This may also contribute to the underrepresentation of non-English publications, potentially excluding research from regions where other languages are used.

Third, the automated clustering approach used in thematic evolution analysis may limit interpretation of causal relationships, as clusters are generated based on algorithmic parameters rather than conceptual linkages [24]. Finally, citation counts were used as a measure of impact; however, this metric inherently favors older publications that have had more time to accumulate citations, potentially biasing the interpretation of recent trends.

The identified scientometric trends in C. canimorsus research highlight the importance of a One Health perspective, as the progression from case reports to zoonotic studies reflects pathways of emerging infectious diseases. The low level of international collaboration and predominance of medical authorship indicate ongoing gaps in cross-disciplinary engagement, particularly between veterinary and human health sectors.

Expanding interdisciplinary and international research networks is essential to improve the detection, diagnosis, and prevention of zoonotic diseases. Integrating C. canimorsus research within the broader One Health framework will enhance understanding of drivers of zoonotic emergence, including pet ownership patterns and human–animal interactions. Future research should further explore these relationships to strengthen global preparedness and response strategies for zoonotic threats.