Synopsis of Social media discussions
The discussions reflect a mixture of agreement and scientific debate, with many posts citing specific false negative rates (up to 30%) and referencing detailed studies, illustrating active engagement with the research and its implications on testing accuracy and pandemic management.
Agreement
Moderate agreementMost discussions acknowledge the study’s findings about false negatives being a real concern, showing general agreement with the article's implications.
Interest
High level of interestThe posts demonstrate a high interest in the reliability of PCR testing, referencing studies, and sharing statistical data.
Engagement
Moderate level of engagementParticipants discuss technical aspects like false negative rates, PCR accuracy, and scientific validation, indicating active engagement.
Impact
Moderate level of impactThe discussions suggest that the article influences opinions about public health policies and testing strategies, though mostly in an academic or skeptical context.
Social Mentions
YouTube
2 Videos
3 Posts
95 Posts
News
4 Articles
7 Posts
Metrics
Video Views
404
Total Likes
127
Extended Reach
572,698
Social Features
111
Timeline: Posts about article
Top Social Media Posts
Semih Tareen
Linki tazeliyorum https://t.co/rmJTb2ynzt
view full post
Ricardo Alvarez
@miguelmazoz53 Muy buena pregunta!
R:todos los datos estadísticos están basados en PCR’s q NO SON DIAGNÓSTICOS y dan 97% FALSOS POSITIVOS hecho incluso admitido xFDA
Efectos adversos inyección se considera q VAERS solo capta del 2-3%,así q fácilmente van 150millones
https://t.co/hslR4zMYK8 https://t.co/t3SkTdUIAw
view full post
UofA Infectious Diseases
False negative rate of COVID-19 PCR testing: a discordant testing analysis
Congratulations @KanjiJamil et al
https://t.co/2XjyF4CIWP
view full post
Hannah Davis
sources for PCR false negative rates:
https://t.co/7MPYyPuH6f
https://t.co/K0LXvqrbbH
https://t.co/ZXYEJYfIus
https://t.co/MefnhtjpYQ
view full post
Virology Tweets
False negative rate of COVID-19 PCR testing: a discordant testing analysis https://t.co/j1QYa6CkRg
view full post
Posts referencing the article
Evaluating the False Negative Rate of COVID-19 RT-PCR Testing
This video discusses the current pandemic caused by Covid19 and examines the accuracy of existing coronavirus detection methods. It highlights the importance of comprehensive testing and multi-stage procedures to accurately identify COVID-19 cases.
July 18, 2021
248 views
Understanding Double Mutations and False Negatives in COVID-19 Testing
This video explains false positives and negatives in COVID-19 RT-PCR tests, highlighting the impact of viral mutations, low viral loads, and sampling issues on test accuracy and the importance of comprehensive clinical assessment.
April 29, 2021
156 views
-
@rup7771 Meanwhile, examine: https://t.co/Klv9ymg1dW https://t.co/vtmtPlM9E1 https://t.co/p1OeVJAy4R
view full postAugust 10, 2024
-
ClimateRealism
@realism_climate (Twitter)@wodarg Auch da sehen Sie die Realität nicht. Erinnert mich auch phänotypisch an eine spanische Romanfigur https://t.co/LwwMCAPJ4U https://t.co/3h8SzQgozS
view full postJune 22, 2024
1
-
DepriveDolphin
@BeefJerkyChef (Twitter)@QuackDetector https://t.co/uxSXW8CAbg PCR has a false negative and positive of approx 30% Call them a quack all you want, random leftoid internet guy. But the PCR is inaccurate and should never be used in this fashion ever again.
view full postJanuary 7, 2024
-
Truth In Numbers
@Truth_in_Number (Twitter)@Canuk_ExPat 3. All of the medical research shows that the PCR test is more likely to yield a false negative than a false positive. https://t.co/XO9BHJSO2B
view full postDecember 29, 2023
-
Truth In Numbers
@Truth_in_Number (Twitter)@ADPinOK @RedactedMom @tommyBoomboom @vancemurphy The biggest problem with the PCR test for COVID was false negatives. It was far more likely to miss an actual infection than it was to to report a false positive. https://t.co/XO9BHJSgd3
view full postDecember 12, 2023
2
-
Askgerbil Now
@Askgerbil (Twitter)@SenatorRennick "Between January 21 and April 18, 2020, 100,001 COVID-19 tests (95,919 patients) were completed with 1,954 (2%) individual cases confirmed... the overall positivity rate was 2.2%. Forty-nine (0.05%) were found to have discordant results" https://t.co/VPc98X4S2s #PublicHealth
view full postJuly 27, 2023
-
OnSecondThought
@JRobertNichols (Twitter)@lsdres @DrLoupis I partially agree with you. I was told all testing for flu stopped and they treated all flu-like symptoms using the CDC Covid protocols. Here is a study I read about related to the PCR. https://t.co/YllAnskC4J
view full postJuly 10, 2023
1
-
FB
@FredBeamer3 (Twitter)@Detrieman @stkirsch @denisrancourt RT-PCR is a valid diagnostic test for RNA sequences of SARS-CoV-2 because it has optimized primer-probe sets. Diagnostic cutoff values are based on LOD, limit of detection from analytical validation. https://t.co/gcpR6s8trK
view full postJuly 9, 2023
-
Being_Bohemian
@being_bohemian (Twitter)@ColinASylvester @oakey_doakey @Rachel_deSouza @educationgovuk 2) https://t.co/A26bYPKgDc
view full postMay 20, 2023
-
Being_Bohemian
@being_bohemian (Twitter)@ColinASylvester @oakey_doakey @Rachel_deSouza @educationgovuk 1)https://t.co/A26bYPKgDc ...and... 2) https://t.co/GONZUPC34r
view full postMay 20, 2023
-
AncientSwordRage #Free
@PureFerret (Twitter)@imhere2retweet @MelxRedgrave @scribecheck How would you be sure you don't have it if you're asymptomatic? Don't forget about false negatives https://t.co/r7ETUkR9cq
view full postMay 1, 2023
4
-
ClimateRealism
@realism_climate (Twitter)@KarlHei40571337 @CarstenMichael7 @DrPuerner https://t.co/LwwMCAPJ4U
view full postApril 2, 2023
-
Brian Birmingham
@BrianBirming (Twitter)@Meowfurian
view full postApril 1, 2023
-
FB
@FredBeamer3 (Twitter)RT @FredBeamer3: @islantstudio @MadSpatter He is lying about RT-PCR, which is actually a valid diagnostic test for RNA sequences of SARS-Co…
view full postMarch 3, 2023
1
-
FB
@FredBeamer3 (Twitter)@islantstudio @MadSpatter He is lying about RT-PCR, which is actually a valid diagnostic test for RNA sequences of SARS-CoV-2. Primer-probe sets are specific for the coronavirus, with internal controls as housekeeping genes. False positive rates are near zero. https://t.co/gcpR6s91hi
view full postMarch 3, 2023
1
1
-
llantwitad
@llantwitad (Twitter)@canadianbaykin @Ellif_DWulfe @_SaveOurStatues @IsabelOakeshott @Telegraph Know about the modern car. He’s one man saying shit that the scientific community has proven wrong. Here. https://t.co/fpH5BYX684
view full postMarch 1, 2023
-
llantwitad
@llantwitad (Twitter)@canadianbaykin @Ellif_DWulfe @_SaveOurStatues @IsabelOakeshott @Telegraph https://t.co/fpH5BYX684
view full postMarch 1, 2023
-
@sue_ecampbell (Twitter)@Pleasure_Lab https://t.co/5valkXUIwM This work adds to the literature by demonstrating that the FNR of SARS-CoV-2 molecular assays is low [1, 27, 28] and subject to viral load dynamics over time.
view full postFebruary 5, 2023
-
BP2018 B.Price
@BP20185 (Twitter)@pekkanen_risto @ER_Korhola False negative rate of COVID-19 PCR testing: a discordant testing analysis https://t.co/K6hSMi13nS
view full postJanuary 7, 2023
1
-
gycm
@gycm232 (Twitter)@vox_void @Womens_R1ghtsUS @siztaroze @NZKylo @KimDotcom https://t.co/wJda45c7ed here you go false positive negative rates are pretty low
view full postDecember 26, 2022
-
Darwin
@DarwinEmmiYedek (Twitter)@Umut22889804 @armanac05 @kenaninac @OpDrBilgehan RT_PCR (ters transkripsiyon polimeraz zincir reaksiyonu) testlerinde doğruluk oranı %90’ın üzerinde. https://t.co/7Y9Sk0G8wO
view full postNovember 3, 2022
-
vvalkyri
@vvalkyri (Twitter)@FinchTH @truthisjustice2 @michaelmina_lab here's one from Jan 2021 https://t.co/KMydyR6RmD
view full postOctober 26, 2022
-
Trish Orwen
@trishorwen (Twitter)@emilyesfraser This study finds PCR tests can give false negatives, and now we’re dealing with a veritable soup of new variants so false negatives are not surprising. https://t.co/0Z5CVsHNvH
view full postOctober 19, 2022
3
-
Druer
@TDruer (Twitter)@ScottGi93141573 @NickDTRT @JuniperBerry74 @drclairetaylor As someone who has personally used PCR in a lab setting, PCR tests are highly accurate. https://t.co/hzYcXrKLcL
view full postSeptember 15, 2022
-
Edward Cating
@edward_cating (Twitter)@sigmastarstate https://t.co/VO7HsKRA9N
view full postAugust 4, 2022
1
-
Darwin
@DarwinEmmiYedek (Twitter)RT_PCR (ters transkripsiyon polimeraz zincir reaksiyonu) testlerinde doğruluk oranı %90’ın üzerinde. https://t.co/7Y9Sk0oxFg
view full postJuly 10, 2022
1
-
DarvinEmmi
@DarvinEmmi (Twitter)@mehmetacar1914 @tipsiztibbiyeli @armanac05 Pcr testi doğruluk oranı %90'dır. https://t.co/gXKEDgp8WT
view full postJune 17, 2022
1
-
Krebiozen
@krebiozen (Twitter)@ogilville1 @mpc_xetts @msabouri @volpiranyas @Alex_on_A14 @SkepticalMutant @provaxtexan @isthisnetaken @ShockTraumaRN @JonathanHannah @JamesLynchGTC @PremierImproves @malo_j @FvckYourFear @Tryingmypatient @chimera414 @JimeeLiberty @TonyBaduy @itisjustmebabe @WalterTAllen @Diar380 @realshocks @AspAlaAsnAsnTyr @kath2cats @756Elizabeth @mcfunny @skepticalprune @ShockTraumaNP @richykirsh @kcgetaway7 @RandomUrban @andylumm @WendyOrent @Nockit1 @Willard1951 @pompili_amanda @ZaynJaffer @PLHartungRN @raouldukeerik @spoonsterboss1 @AndrewLazarus4 @PiattPicks @Fannyi5 @doom37455413 @sammy44231 @NoMisinfoToday @SallyJiggles @zeetubes @DPirate2020 @Monstercoyliar In this study, of 93,965 negative patients, 49 were found to be false negatives. That's 0.05% of them. Apply that to the 3,410 negative tests in the Pfizer study, and you would expect about 2 of them to be false negatives, not all, as some
view full postMay 9, 2022
2
-
Send Dopamine ♺
@SendDopaminePls (Twitter)@foremorebeers @Scoot50384877 This study says 17% false negative. https://t.co/1o6KTLhDbw.
view full postApril 27, 2022
-
IzJohnston
@IzJohnston (Twitter)@TomBoylesID @Doctor_Cr @ClareCraigPath 1/4 https://t.co/gtQ0d171Bp discordant results 49 FPP & 52 FNP Since only the FNP’s were studied but their rate was on par with the FPP, it is fair to figure that the FPP rate is also 9-10% For a total error rate 18.3-20%
view full postApril 25, 2022
-
IzJohnston
@IzJohnston (Twitter)@Doctor_Cr @TomBoylesID @ClareCraigPath 2/4 https://t.co/gtQ0d171Bp discordant results 49 FPP & 52 FNP Since only the FNP’s were studied but their rate was on par with the FPP, it is fair to figure that the FPP rate is also 9-10% For a total error rate 18.3-20%
view full postApril 25, 2022
-
Leon
@Leontraveller_ (Twitter)@KarenWenLin 只谈数据，PCR假阴性可能有9%，就算只有5%，意味着2000万人口PCR数据错误至少上百万。Omicron的R0至少9。对于一个高传播性低毒性的病毒，传播快无症状多，基本数据就说明实际清零根本不可能。https://t.co/CUrzq65Z05
view full postApril 18, 2022
1
-
Joe Cautec
@JCautec (Twitter)@emilygraymd_mph @drkatmclean BS. PCR had 52 false negatives in 95,919 patients. 49 false positives. https://t.co/LUpA6utasu In Denmark. The RATs experienced a 30% false negative rate. Additionally it only found 40% of the positive case rate also. https://t.co/KkNV6m56A4.
view full postMarch 28, 2022
-
Halil Babilli
@halilbabilli (Twitter)@ilvana @trblnfxn Skalaya gel :) Studies of false-negative (FN) results from respiratory samples for SARS-CoV-2 are variable demonstrating FN rates (FNRs) ranging from 1 to 30% https://t.co/YKDzOZG9eB
view full postMarch 3, 2022
-
Elke Babiuk
@ElkeBabiuk (Twitter)Why did Fatah interview an EO with an agenda & unfamiliar with interpreting science? Be Best: @CBCNews This unsupported by science/med? "Forty-nine (0.05%) were found to have discordant results (total 101 swabs including 46 patients with two swabs...." https://t.co/QNHJTtF40a
view full postFebruary 12, 2022
1
-
@Dee_Bourne_ (Twitter)@dirgarambe Itu dpt 1% hasil riset sendiri kah? Kok beda sama yg ada laporannya? https://t.co/YaOJywSx2y
view full postFebruary 8, 2022
-
Incarcerated_Alaska
@BirdChayser (Twitter)@supersammystar @kare11 This seems to say otherwise.. https://t.co/sj0A9bd4Ju They sometimes have a specificity issue but false positives are extremely rare.
view full postJanuary 9, 2022
-
James French
@grade1view (Twitter)@paulthomassj @ElsiesWoke I would take into account the clinical situation as the good standard isn’t always golden https://t.co/0X2bkKQmns
view full postJanuary 6, 2022
-
Nico Vaes
@VaesNico (Twitter)@merlyntje @StevenQ74 @natas_groen @IngeGem @bergdaantje Bewijs maar. De wetenschappelijke studie graag. Hier alvast een studie die het tegendeel aantoont: https://t.co/3xGChSlsks Jouw beurt.
view full postJanuary 1, 2022
-
JR
@JR_2020 (Twitter)@wakeupmummy Things are almost always more complicated than people realize or are told: https://t.co/JPFjVMHKom
view full postDecember 31, 2021
-
Silvia mdq
@mdq_silvia (Twitter)RT @RicardoAlvarezC: @miguelmazoz53 Muy buena pregunta! R:todos los datos estadísticos están basados en PCR’s q NO SON DIAGNÓSTICOS y dan…
view full postDecember 29, 2021
4
-
KVV
@KVV604 (Twitter)@RGoudvis @Fishisgood4you @AriBeuker @cornaldm Tja false positive/negative uitslagen zijn zeer zeldzaam kunnen niet compleet uitgesloten worden. Zie https://t.co/ivRW8ytIIN
view full postDecember 28, 2021
-
rico
@rico78950807 (Twitter)RT @Canhistoryrules: @rico78950807 @CBCToronto https://t.co/4aFIrjC3TH https://t.co/AINianj40V
view full postDecember 27, 2021
1
-
Ben
@Canhistoryrules (Twitter)@rico78950807 @CBCToronto https://t.co/4aFIrjC3TH https://t.co/AINianj40V
view full postDecember 27, 2021
1
-
Luc Aerts
@Luketheduke1960 (Twitter)@JanDSmit @MikeJavv Ik zie net dat ik een verkeerde link gestuurd heb, sorry. Dit is de juiste : https://t.co/3z8myfKmsX
view full postDecember 26, 2021
-
tess
@xsphi (Twitter)@eurydicelives @womveg This says 9.3% (January 2021): https://t.co/H05Pk9ImYo
view full postDecember 26, 2021
2
-
Ana Di Zacco
@Anazacco (Twitter)@gasparcuartero @SomosCosteros @LolaneuroMD https://t.co/X0tvw1EerB https://t.co/dxP6VVtKWo https://t.co/IwkAM8jPrs https://t.co/dBqYeEnFGU
view full postDecember 24, 2021
2
1
-
@Jhonatanro (Twitter)RT @RicardoAlvarezC: @miguelmazoz53 Muy buena pregunta! R:todos los datos estadísticos están basados en PCR’s q NO SON DIAGNÓSTICOS y dan…
view full postDecember 23, 2021
4
-
Carlos AT
@CarlosMilimpera (Twitter)RT @RicardoAlvarezC: @miguelmazoz53 Muy buena pregunta! R:todos los datos estadísticos están basados en PCR’s q NO SON DIAGNÓSTICOS y dan…
view full postDecember 23, 2021
4
-
Hannah Davis
@ahandvanish (Twitter)sources for PCR false negative rates: https://t.co/7MPYyPuH6f https://t.co/K0LXvqrbbH https://t.co/ZXYEJYfIus https://t.co/MefnhtjpYQ
view full postDecember 21, 2021
9
-
SHUTTY
@apshutt (Twitter)@alamoalfie @ErrolLea @maryaalexand1 @BQuilty https://t.co/z8EV8iG5G9
view full postDecember 17, 2021
-
David Halfacree
@HalfacreeDavid (Twitter)@itssophiemorris @lukemcgee It probably is wise to be mindful that a PCR test isn’t 100% reliable (the usual qualifier that I have no expert knowledge in the field). https://t.co/gZObBfk2v1
view full postDecember 17, 2021
-
Abo Barakat Arifi
@aborifi (Twitter)@brkb19 @_b_meyer 1 https://t.co/PbrGu29st8 2- https://t.co/dJ4TUjDygx Daher ist ein
view full postDecember 9, 2021
-
David K. Poole
@dkpoole55 (Twitter)@danfred_ca @richardzussman @GlobalBC Should have been vaccinated and a pcr test. Feds should be providing some details. Assuming they were tested false negatives from PCR test have been as high as 30%. There are a number of variables thht can cause this https://t.co/kNFcnnBUQJ
view full postNovember 30, 2021
1
-
Nico Vaes
@VaesNico (Twitter)@BoyceM141 @ITWT10 @KathyConWom That story has been debunked so many times now it's hard to believe it. https://t.co/3xGChSlsks
view full postNovember 22, 2021
-
Vicki Allen Crabb
@crabb_vicki (Twitter)@USBornNRaised @kevinault @scott4670 @DrTomFrieden How did you determine you DIDN’T have COVID? Be specific. Considering that the tests have a significant percent of false negatives (as high as 30%), it does not mean it’s deceitful. https://t.co/1BvlaE4dKx
view full postNovember 20, 2021
2
-
Sarcasmoloog
@sarcasmoloog (Twitter)@Adinda261678932 @radboudumc Daarom is er ook een cycle threshold. Dit verhoogt de betrouwbaar. Verder: https://t.co/BBOdeE8mlT
view full postNovember 19, 2021
-
Nico Vaes
@VaesNico (Twitter)@jenanluvsangels @Marc_Montana @Daniel_SaveUSA @claudiatenney Here's an actual scientific study on this exact subject, which shows the reliability of PCR testing to be VERY high: https://t.co/3xGChSlsks
view full postNovember 12, 2021
-
LooptAlEenTijdMee
@LooptAl (Twitter)@R1979SvB @LiveAndLearnNL @stichtinglv @HarambamJaron Onzin. Als jij een andere bron kan vinden, graag. Het lijkt erop dat je er totaal naast zit. https://t.co/OB1YydZ8MQ
view full postNovember 10, 2021
1
-
Dorothy Lawrence
@dorothylaws_ (Twitter)RT @RobSomerville1: @RodMGB I have a little experience with these tests. Our whole family had Covid, most of us tested positive but not ev…
view full postOctober 28, 2021
1
-
Rob Somerville
@RobSomerville1 (Twitter)@RodMGB I have a little experience with these tests. Our whole family had Covid, most of us tested positive but not everyone. This study says about 10% of PCR tests show false negative https://t.co/bl7tU6MN1C I believe false negatives can be higher towards 20%
view full postOctober 23, 2021
1
-
Mutz
@MutzUk (Twitter)@UrquhartSir @flufficat @auntiedodo Just putting the word fact in big letters at the end of your Tweet does not protect you from being a #kunt or being called out on your lies. https://t.co/cMLwnsNQUu
view full postOctober 19, 2021
-
Tref
@climbtechy (Twitter)@fedupfish @StroudCorona Worth reading https://t.co/NxlwpFhWrr
view full postOctober 10, 2021
-
David Osborn
@SafeDavid3 (Twitter)@DRTomlinsonEP @microlabdoc @mjb302 @LawtonTri @hughes_eilir @Linzofm87 @ThePalpitations @huwwaters @BarryMcAree @isfrackingsafe Very disturbing indeed! Recent paper reports almost 10% False Negative Rate for PCR Test (9.3% to be precise). So about 1 in 10 people walking around happy and confident they're disease-free are potentially infected and spreading
view full postOctober 9, 2021
2
-
M C ERONAT @ Dubai
@eronat (Twitter)@sapbasis123 @zeki88002256 @drbulentpolat Enformasyon mühendisiyim. https://t.co/evVWkS3vUo https://t.co/i8XCgxvT4E
view full postOctober 3, 2021
-
John Akerman Özgüç
@Aquinoxmusic (Twitter)@Nebiwnl @JohnDoe78084921 @Lisanne_1908 het leesvoer deed haar 'hersenen' ontploffen, niemand kan het zien nu dus nog maals: https://t.co/PjOM6BEA6G https://t.co/WsPrryOPRP https://t.co/ItiZ5iyu1q https://t.co/Qi84HMuQAG https://t.co/FyWtgRKpHL
view full postSeptember 30, 2021
2
-
John Akerman Özgüç
@Aquinoxmusic (Twitter)@Lisanne_1908 leesvoer voor jou https://t.co/PjOM6BEA6G https://t.co/WsPrryOPRP https://t.co/ItiZ5iyu1q https://t.co/Qi84HMuQAG https://t.co/FyWtgRKpHL
view full postSeptember 30, 2021
-
Harry Bloke
@HarryBloke (Twitter)@covidbaseau
view full postSeptember 28, 2021
-
haumake17
@haumake17 (Twitter)@Fon338 @SGalbertoMN @Jasuno_247 @RealCandaceO You could read through this(which I haven't). Seems to be saying what I heard previously. https://t.co/yUN2KJFypK
view full postSeptember 18, 2021
-
John Akerman Özgüç
@Aquinoxmusic (Twitter)@elstenhengel @anaobscura @PartijvdDieren Het is gewoon verkapt fascisme om dit op te dringen bij mensen. Bovendien stoelt het beleid niet op gedegen wetenschappelijke basis. https://t.co/PjOM6BEA6G https://t.co/WsPrryOPRP https://t.co/ItiZ5iyu1q https://t.co/Qi84HMuQAG https://t.co/FyWtgRKpHL
view full postSeptember 17, 2021
-
John Akerman Özgüç
@Aquinoxmusic (Twitter)@anaobscura @PartijvdDieren De wetenschap zegt juist dat de corona vaccins BS zijn. En dat de pcr test super onbetrouwbaar is. #coronapas https://t.co/PjOM6BEA6G https://t.co/WsPrryOPRP https://t.co/ItiZ5iyu1q https://t.co/Qi84HMuQAG https://t.co/FyWtgRKpHL
view full postSeptember 17, 2021
-
Manu_K_talà ✌️
@Manu_K_tala (Twitter)RT @RicardoAlvarezC: @miguelmazoz53 Muy buena pregunta! R:todos los datos estadísticos están basados en PCR’s q NO SON DIAGNÓSTICOS y dan…
view full postSeptember 15, 2021
4
-
Ricardo Alvarez
@RicardoAlvarezC (Twitter)@miguelmazoz53 Muy buena pregunta! R:todos los datos estadísticos están basados en PCR’s q NO SON DIAGNÓSTICOS y dan 97% FALSOS POSITIVOS hecho incluso admitido xFDA Efectos adversos inyección se considera q VAERS solo capta del 2-3%,así q fácilmente van 150millones https://t.co/hslR4zMYK8 https://t.co/t3SkTdUIAw
view full postSeptember 15, 2021
11
4
-
Lindsey
@whiterose_lady (Twitter)@pablo_beee @BadcrumbleRJH @SteveHu39112632 @LBC @TomSwarbrick1 No im not saying it. The science and data says it. False negative reports of less than 10%. https://t.co/uQPkIwoPvJ
view full postSeptember 14, 2021
-
ArEs
@ArifArifArif71 (Twitter)@SELCUKDMKY @FBLi1907lim @SntMSM Bilimadamlari https://t.co/N6Svja1puH
view full postSeptember 13, 2021
-
群馬のクマ（別名サヨクマ）
@kumasannda (Twitter)偽陽性がそれほど多いなら、世界にはそれなりの論文が発表されている筈だと思い探してみるが一向に見つからない（偽陰性については少ないがいくつか存在する）。 https://t.co/2y6g7mMBRb ※この論文では特異度100％を仮定している
view full postSeptember 7, 2021
-
O Z L E M Y I L H A N¹⁹⁰⁷⚽️
@OzlemYilhan (Twitter)RT @virusfantom: Linki tazeliyorum https://t.co/rmJTb2ynzt
view full postSeptember 6, 2021
2
-
Betül Kırdar
@BetulKirdar (Twitter)RT @virusfantom: Linki tazeliyorum https://t.co/rmJTb2ynzt
view full postSeptember 6, 2021
2
-
Semih Tareen
@virusfantom (Twitter)Linki tazeliyorum https://t.co/rmJTb2ynzt
view full postSeptember 6, 2021
39
2
-
Semih Tareen
@virusfantom (Twitter)@self_adjoint https://t.co/rmJTb2ynzt
view full postSeptember 6, 2021
2
-
Pino Quintaliani
@Pqr9ap (Twitter)salivary swab. – False negative rate of COVID-19 PCR testing: a discordant testing analysis | Virology Journal | https://t.co/cW0j9AUoSM
view full postSeptember 5, 2021
1
-
James Rowe
@BearlyJames (Twitter)@watkinson137 @mattdowse @PoliticsPollss Name one other test that’s 100% accurate Stuart. A test was done where 95k patients with 100,000 samples were tested and 49 patients had false positives. It’s crazy how accessible information from qualified virologists is: https://t.co/eBfoOdKoOQ
view full postAugust 26, 2021
-
Patriot WJ
@wjack76995 (Twitter)@JohnBee888 @barryjohnreid21 @JSAHolmes @Alex_on_A14 @BrowningNeelyn @ghoppe @TierraHenson @MdRisette @pawley_robert @trpdo @ADreyzen @KayVonPaul @RodFair2 @Will_holliday1 @NateWeymouth @FineAndBrennan @BurgerLab12 @andylumm @carlsmythe @ItsAllLies1 @mcfunny @RTheatheist @BioVisionary @ChrisJohnsonMD @DEKKplans @KAMasse81 @jamesgordon4th @nyob7714 @DontMes70957787 @Jenni86587557 @SassyGirlD1 @SaltaoVladimir @Bebert701 @WendyOrent @jhan2qt @Nycweatherrepor @Michell69397997 @lizditz @TakeThatCDC @Dkingnbearjavi @markmcdougall13 @thatsnotmine125 @florida_reb @ginapro @fredwibblington @airbagandme @UKCryptoKing247 @Kathmarval @swedishchf https://t.co/c4uTb4HAeb
view full postAugust 25, 2021
1
-
VaccineMole
@VaccineMole (Twitter)@ezana_negus @Joe_Sarkadi @IvoryHecker No, not all, only some that are still ignorant about PCR tests, wish has lots of false negative/positive results & that covid vaccines are the greatest deception on earth PCR: https://t.co/p7enknRayh Vaccines https://t.co/aRDKkxCI7u https://t.co/vBxcyGaV3M https://t.co/gl7PS9RbOH
view full postAugust 21, 2021
-
Ian is 1453 days w/o a covid incident and counting
@ianwrob (Twitter)@AbundantLandUse @ljfawkes It's what, 5 per 10000 tests false negative? https://t.co/CdTWbAYJ8B
view full postAugust 21, 2021
1
-
Clem-Here for the Kakistocracy -Kadiddlehopper
@ClemSkelton (Twitter)@not_sellin @GlenKorstrom It's not inconsistent, there are known deficiencies with false negatives. Other than that there's a half percent error rate. https://t.co/7ThGeg2BbK
view full postAugust 21, 2021
-
Prove It
@less_govt (Twitter)https://t.co/dLFvsnBbpI
view full postAugust 19, 2021
-
Dr Pratima Sharma
@devrupa_ni (Twitter)False negative rate of COVID-19 PCR testing: a discordant testing analysis https://t.co/e7HsZYlcLR
view full postMay 28, 2021
-
gosia p
@gosia_poplawska (Twitter)https://t.co/j50Z2oUEv0 *also, RT are 80% sensitive and 99% a person without a virus will get a negative PCR based on this https://t.co/7xlvUvTthd
view full postMarch 30, 2021
-
Molecular Diagnostics Papers
@diag_papers (Twitter)False negative rate of COVID-19 PCR testing: a discordant testing analysis. https://t.co/cl10jw0CWz https://t.co/g5QmmVBU0L
view full postJanuary 29, 2021
-
Justin Chen
@IDdocChen (Twitter)RT @UofA_ID: False negative rate of COVID-19 PCR testing: a discordant testing analysis Congratulations @KanjiJamil et al https://t.co/2…
view full postJanuary 17, 2021
3
-
Michael Mengel
@mmengelUofA (Twitter)RT @UofA_ID: False negative rate of COVID-19 PCR testing: a discordant testing analysis Congratulations @KanjiJamil et al https://t.co/2…
view full postJanuary 10, 2021
3
-
Virology Tweets
@VirologyJ (Twitter)False negative rate of COVID-19 PCR testing: a discordant testing analysis https://t.co/j1QYa6CkRg
view full postJanuary 9, 2021
5
-
Karen Doucette
@doucette_ked1 (Twitter)RT @UofA_ID: False negative rate of COVID-19 PCR testing: a discordant testing analysis Congratulations @KanjiJamil et al https://t.co/2…
view full postJanuary 9, 2021
3
-
UofA Infectious Diseases
@UofA_ID (Twitter)False negative rate of COVID-19 PCR testing: a discordant testing analysis Congratulations @KanjiJamil et al https://t.co/2XjyF4CIWP
view full postJanuary 9, 2021
10
3
-
A Comprehensive Review On Current COVID 19 Detection Method ...
... 10.1186/ [23] R.K. Williams, G.S. Jiang, K.V. Holmes, Receptor for mouse hepatitis virus is a s12985-021-01489-0. member of the carcinoembryonic antigen ...
view full postDecember 21, 2025
News
-
42UlusalRadyolojiKongresi 2021press2 | PDF
doi:10.1186/s12985-021-01489-0 7. Ye Z et al.(2020) Chest CT manifestations of new coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): a pictorial review. Eur Radiol 30 (8): ...
view full postDecember 21, 2025
News
-
Enhancing Protein Coated Drug Delivery and Their Preparation ...
https://doi.org/ 10.1186/S12985-021-01489-0. Biosens. Bioelectron. 141, 111398. [233]. Kaushik, A.K., Dhau, J.S., Gohel, H., Mishra, Y.K., https ...
view full postNovember 29, 2023
News
-
chest congestion update, went to urgent care : r/Asthma
No test result is absolute gospel. For PCR tests false negatives: https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-021-01489-0.
view full postOctober 2, 2022
Reddit
-
rinta tukossa päivitys, kävin päivystyksessä : r/Asthma - Reddit
https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-021-01489-0 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35402162/. Tässä on meta-tutkimuksen ...
view full postOctober 2, 2022
Reddit
-
Göğüs tıkanıklığı güncellemesi, acil servise gittim : r/Asthma - Reddit
https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-021-01489-0 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35402162/. İşte bir meta-çalışmanın ...
view full postOctober 2, 2022
Reddit
-
Is our PCR testing flawed? : r/Winnipeg - Reddit
https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-021-01489-0. Seems to say that PCR tests (at least, as done in the study) give ...
view full postDecember 31, 2021
Reddit
-
At what rate do PCR tests return false negatives, and should one get ...
... 10.1186/s12985-021-01489-0). Is there any growing consensus on what exactly the rate of false negatives is? For context, I had my second ...
view full postSeptember 23, 2021
Reddit
-
Just after celebrating a doughnut day, Victorian officials say they're ...
com/articles/10.1186/s12985-021-01489-0. virologyj.biomedcentral.com. False negative rate of COVID-19 PCR testing: a discordant testing. 4 yrs.
view full postAugust 3, 2021
Facebook
-
Tip for getting a toddler through Covid testing (hope you don't need it ...
https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-021-01489-0. Keep in mind we are talking about testing kids that aren't suspected ...
view full postJuly 21, 2021
Reddit
-
Küçük bir çocuğu Covid testinden geçirmenin ipucu (umarım ...
https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-021-01489-0. Unutmayın, covid'i olduğundan şüphelenilmeyen ama güvenli olmak için ...
view full postJuly 21, 2021
Reddit
-
What caused the jump in COVID-19 cases and testing? - Facebook
com/articles/10.1186/s12985-021-01489-0 ) So let's take the current positivity rate of . 44% if you test about 29,000 you get about 126. If ...
view full postJune 27, 2021
Facebook
-
Communication the game changer for Tokyo Olympics: ex-IOC ...
https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-021-01489-0. Between 17% - 30%....dependent on how the modeling is analyzed. 1( + ...
view full postJune 7, 2021
News
-
Testing will soon be commonplace in Singapore's new normal. It's a ...
com/articles/10.1186/s12985-021-01489-0. virologyj.biomedcentral.com. False negative rate of COVID-19 PCR testing: a discordant testing. 4 yrs ...
view full postJune 7, 2021
Facebook
Abstract Synopsis
- The study evaluated the false negative rate (FNR) and sensitivity of a lab-developed RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 by analyzing discordant test results from patients, finding a false negative rate of approximately 7-9%.
- Most false negatives were linked to low viral loads in patients, emphasizing the importance of considering multiple samples and testing stages for accurate diagnosis.
- The findings highlight the need for ongoing assessment of RT-PCR assay performance and suggest that clinical evaluation beyond test results is crucial to avoid missing COVID-19 cases.]
Paradigm Shift
@zWholeBeing (Twitter)