Participation versus education: The GISSI story and beyond

Approximately 20 years ago, the Italian cardiology community realized the scientific importance and the potential impact on clinical practice of the new concept of evidence-based medicine and launched (without funds) a national megatrial, the Gruppo Italiano por lo Studio della Streptochinasi nellʹInfarto Miocardico (GISSI) study. In the following 20 years, 4 GISSI trials have been carried out, and a fifth is underway. The conceptual process that followed this experience shaped the role of the medico-scientific society that sponsored these trials as an active player in research, with the public health as the common target. This process of getting together was founded on the basic principle that active participation can be much more effective and rewarding than education (a passive process). Accordingly, further studies were undertaken dealing with clinical epidemiology, observational outcome research introduced complementarily to develop lines of clinical investigation along 2 mainstreams: ischemic heart disease and heart failure. The original decision to directly sponsor countrywide research projects in critical and relevant areas of care had broader implications not only for the role of scientific societies, but more generally for the nurture of independent research, which is today widely recognized to be at risk. The articulation among experimental, observational, and evaluative protocols in which all caring physicians are allowed to be producers and authors and not simply users of knowledge can favor a cultural continuity that minimizes the risk of parallelisms and gaps between research and care.