Paving the Way towards Antisense Therapy against Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy

281 nant women’s choices for or against prenatal screening, it would be interesting to compare the rates of informed choice between different countries. Third, this paper describes the findings of a cluster-randomized trial that was aimed to replicate the findings of earlier correlational studies. These studies did find higher rates of informed uptake in a routine visit setting as compared to a separate visit setting. The present study shows equal percentages of informed choice in both contexts. The authors discuss this discrepancy by questioning the quality and power of the trial. However, in correlational studies causality cannot be assumed, and the findings can be biased as a result of other underlying factors. The results of the trial support the fact that there may be possible alternative explanations of the previously found correlation between setting and informed choice. All in all, the question remains whether a separate visit entails unnecessary barriers, or prevents test acceptance without deliberation. M. van den Berg, Amsterdam