In this episode of Communicable, Josh Davis (Newcastle, Australia) and Emily McDonald (Montreal, Canada), plus invited guest, Steven Tong (Melbourne, Australia)—all practicing physicians and clinical trialists— assemble to discuss some of their ‘top infectious diseases papers published in 2025’....

Tuberculosis has been entwined with humanity for millen…

The OpportunityHere at The Kids our vision is simple; Happy, Healthy Kids!The Infectious Diseases Epidemiology Team is dedicated to reducing the burd...

Erin K. McCreary, PharmD (1), Ahmad Mourad, MD MHS (2, 3)

Clinical Literature Appraisal and Research education in InfecTious diseases

Over the past two decades, the generation and application of clinical evidence in the fields of clinical infectious diseases and microbiology have entered a new era: one in which clinical guidelines a...

Hierarchical composite endpoints (HCEs) are increasingly being used in infectious disease research. In this paper, we illustrate different methods for analyzing HCEs in post-hoc analyses of the BALANC...

Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) outcomes such as the primary outcome of the DOTS (Dalbavancin as an Option for Treatment of Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia) trial can improve statistical effic...

This issue of NEJM AI features the first two articles published through our accelerated human+AI review process. In this editorial, we describe the invitation-only “Fast Track” process used to revi...

Over the past two decades, the generation and application of clinical evidence in the fields of clinical infectious diseases and microbiology have entered a new era: one in which clinical guidelines are increasingly informed by large, well designed randomised controlled trials rather than relying on observational evidence, in-vitro data or expert opinion. This change has been catalysed and informed by similar earlier developments in other areas of medicine, such as cardiovascular medicine and critical care medicine.We are hence now at a nodal point in our speciality, where our clinical decisions can be increasingly informed by high-level clinical evidence. This change goes hand in hand with the need for all those practicing in our fields to deepen their understanding of the design, conduct and particularly the interpretation of randomised controlled trials. Further, studies analysing observational datasets with advanced methods for causal inference are being used more broadly. Such studies and their methods require critical appraisal before conclusions are drawn. To help inform our clinical community we recently launched the CLARITY initiative: a non-profit academic collaboration of clinicians and researchers in the fields of infectious diseases and microbiology (www.clarityinitiative.org). The two main pillars of CLARITY are education and critical appraisal of the literature.We owe our critical care colleagues for the inspiration for CLARITY. In particular, we acknowledge Dr Rob Mac Sweeney and the team behind Critical Care Reviews (https://www.criticalcarereviews.com/), an incredible resource that, over the 15 years since its launch, has grown to be the premiere source of trusted reviews of the literature in critical care medicine, as well as hosting a highly popular conference.The education element of CLARITY will focus on clinical trials design and methodology; we plan to run courses on this aimed at trainees in our fields, as well as specialists who are not yet experienced in clinical trials. The first of these will take place in Europe in November 2026. With regards to critical appraisal of the literature, we will publish regular in-depth analyses and interpretations of important clinical trials, both on our website (https://www.clarityinitiative.org) and in CMI Communications. The first of these is published in this edition of CMI Communications [1].Who will write these commentaries? We are hoping that you, the clinical infectious diseases and microbiology community, will help with that! The CLARITY initiative is a group of volunteers – we invite all of you to join in these activities and grow our pool of regular reviewers. Commentaries are submitted via the CLARITY website and will be screened and reviewed by CLARITY faculty with a revised commentary then posted onto the CLARITY website for rapid dissemination. We will also ask the reviewers to submit this revised commentary to CMI Communications (in the ‘Commentary’ category - up to 1,400 words and 10 references) for formal peer review and consideration of publication (https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/cmi-communications/publish/guide-for-authors). There will be no article processing charge.So, please keep an eye out for practice-changing clinical trials and high-quality observational studies that use robust causal inference methods in infectious diseases and microbiology, and consider writing a commentary: how was the trial designed and conducted – are there critical limitations? What did the results show, and more importantly what do these results mean to you, and for everyday practice? Some commentaries may focus on more methodological issues, and others on the clinical implications and context of the findings. All commentaries should start with a summary paragraph with the key findings of the paper, how you interpret them, and what you think their implications are for clinical practice.We look forward to working with you on this initiative. If you are interested in helping out with CLARITY, or simply want to know more, please get in touch with us on the below email addresses.FundingNoneProf Josh Davis – University of Newcastle, Newcastle, [email protected] Steven Tong – University of Melbourne, Melbourne, [email protected] of interestNone