Objective:

To discuss imprecise and redundant terminology in infectious diseases and its potential to cause misinterpretation.

Approach:

• Conceptual discussion: The author examines the term “invasive fungal infection,” distinguishes infection from colonization, and identifies pleonasms in infectious-disease literature.
• Terminology examples: The article proposes describing the pathogen or infection more specifically, including severity or extent, and distinguishing asymptomatic bacteremia from symptomatic bloodstream infection.

Key Findings:

• The author argues that “invasive fungal infection” is a misnomer because invasion is inherent to infection, while acknowledging that whether invasiveness describes the infection or its pathogen remains debatable.
• Colonization is distinguished from infection because it does not involve actual invasion of the body; colonization may also protect against other infections.
• The phrase “invasive infection” may be used to convey severity or extent, but the author argues that more specific descriptions can communicate the intended meaning.
• The article states that pathogen detection alone does not invariably warrant treatment and that precise terminology is particularly relevant to antibiotic stewardship.

Interpretation:

The author calls for reflection on infectious-disease terminology, arguing that more precise wording may reduce misinterpretation and help prevent overtreatment or inappropriate treatment.

Limitations:

• This is a letter to the editor presenting a terminology discussion; the provided text reports no original empirical study or quantitative evaluation.

Conclusion:

The author also suggests that the discussion should inform improvement of peer review for manuscripts submitted to medical journals.