"tested positive for" vs "tested positive with"

Question

"tested positive for" vs "tested positive with"

Both "tested positive for" and "tested positive with" are commonly used phrases, but they are used in different contexts. "Tested positive for" is used when specifying the specific condition or disease that the test results show, while "tested positive with" is used when referring to the agent or substance that caused the positive result.

Last Updated: April 01, 2024

This phrase is used to indicate the specific condition or disease that the test results show. For example, "He tested positive for COVID-19."

Examples:

She tested positive for the flu.
The patient tested positive for drugs.
They tested positive for the virus.
He tested positive for antibodies.
The test results showed he tested positive for cancer.

Alternatives:

was diagnosed with
had a positive result for
showed positive results for
confirmed positive for
was found to have

This phrase is used to indicate the agent or substance that caused the positive test result. For example, "The food tested positive with salmonella."

Examples:

The water sample tested positive with lead contamination.
The patient tested positive with a rare bacteria.
The product tested positive with high levels of mercury.
The soil sample tested positive with pesticides.
The blood test showed he tested positive with a specific virus.

Alternatives:

was found to have
showed presence of
was detected with
was identified with
had a positive result with

Answer 1

tested positive for

This phrase is correct and commonly used in English.

Answer 2

tested positive with

This phrase is correct and commonly used in English.

"tested positive for" vs "tested positive with"

tested positive for

tested positive with

Related Comparisons