Reply to Vos et al

To the Editor—Vos et al correctly point out that only 3 studies with reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)–based tests were included in our systematic review and metaanalysis. We were also surprised that despite the increasing popularity and rapid implementation of PCR-based rapid tests, only 3 high-quality studies with PCR-based methods that at that time met the inclusion criteria for our systematic review could be incorporated. RT-PCR methods may have great potential as future rapid tests, but implementation of PCR-based rapid tests should be based on data from high-quality studies. Therefore, we encourage the planning of high-quality evaluations of these tests, not only for diagnostic accuracy but also for clinical feasibility [1]. Pointing out possible drawbacks of a specific technique merely reflects our critical view, not a pessimistic attitude toward the future of rapid (PCR) testing. On the contrary, our aim was to encourage this field of research by our review and by expressing our opinion that "true" point-of-care testing requires novel strategies on logistics. In this context, the value of nonmolecular tests should not be underestimated.