trustmebro.to/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim

COVID-19 tests have specific expected rates of false positives and negatives

the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
Recorded sources
5 sources for · 0 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Is it true that COVID-19 tests have specific expected rates of false positives and negatives?

Yes. COVID-19 diagnostic tests have well-documented rates of false positives and negatives, which vary depending on factors such as the timing of the test relative to symptom onset, viral load, and disease prevalence.

Verdict: SUPPORTED · 5 sources for, 0 against · Last checked

The analysis

Numerous high-quality reviews, clinical studies, and systematic analyses confirm that COVID-19 diagnostic tests (both molecular RT-PCR and rapid antigen tests) exhibit specific, quantifiable rates of false positives and false negatives that depend heavily on testing conditions, disease stage, and prevalence.

Evidence for · 5
Pathophysiology, Transmission, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
2020
The study notes that false-negative RT-PCR results may occur in up to 20% to 67% of patients depending on the quality and timing of testing.
Get citation
Wiersinga, W. J., Rhodes, A., Cheng, A., Peacock, S. J., & Prescott, H. C. (2020). Pathophysiology, Transmission, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.12839

See more details
More for · 4
Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection
2020
The review details specific ranges for false-negative and false-positive rates for antigen tests depending on symptom status and disease prevalence.
Get citation
Dinnes, J., Deeks, J. J., Adriano, A., Berhane, S., Davenport, C., Dittrich, S., Emperador, D., Takwoingi, Y., Cunningham, J., Beese, S., Dretzke, J., Ruffano, L. F. d., Harris, I. M., Price, M. J., Taylor‐Phillips, S., Hooft, L., Leeflang, M., Spijker, R., Bruel, A. V. d., & Group, C. C. D. T. A. (2020). Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd013705

False-negative results of initial RT-PCR assays for COVID-19: A systematic review
2020
This systematic review calculates pooled estimates and prediction intervals for initial RT-PCR false-negative rates in COVID-19 testing.
Get citation
Arévalo-Rodríguez, I., Buitrago‐García, D., Simancas‐Racines, D., Zambrano-Achig, P., Campo, R. D., Ciapponi, A., Sued, O., Martínez-García, L., Rutjes, A. W., Low, N., Bossuyt, P. M., Pérez‐Molina, J. A., & Zamora, J. (2020). False-negative results of initial RT-PCR assays for COVID-19: A systematic review. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242958

Scaling up COVID-19 rapid antigen tests: promises and challenges
2021
The paper discusses expected false-negative rates when viral loads decrease and false-positive rates in low-prevalence settings.
Get citation
Peeling, R., Olliaro, P., Boeras, D., & Fongwen, N. T. (2021). Scaling up COVID-19 rapid antigen tests: promises and challenges. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00048-7

False negative rate of COVID-19 PCR testing: a discordant testing analysis
2021
The analysis evaluates the false-negative rate and sensitivity of RT-PCR assays, finding specific discordant test percentages.
Get citation
Kanji, J. N., Zelyas, N., MacDonald, C., Pabbaraju, K., Khan, M. N., Prasad, A., Hu, J., Diggle, M., Berenger, B. M., & Tipples, G. (2021). False negative rate of COVID-19 PCR testing: a discordant testing analysis. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12985-021-01489-0

Related receipts

What does the evidence say?

Numerous high-quality reviews, clinical studies, and systematic analyses confirm that COVID-19 diagnostic tests (both molecular RT-PCR and rapid antigen tests) exhibit specific, quantifiable rates of false positives and false negatives that depend heavily on testing conditions, disease stage, and prevalence.

Receipt History
first checked31 Jul 2026
judged → SUPPORTED · 9831 Jul 2026
Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

See the evidence timeline

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work