"were positive for" vs "tested positive for"

Question

"were positive for" vs "tested positive for"

Both phrases are correct, but they are used in different contexts. 'Tested positive for' is used when referring to the result of a test, indicating that the person was tested and the result was positive. 'Were positive for' is used when stating that someone had a positive status without explicitly mentioning the test. The choice between the two depends on the specific context and the level of detail needed.

Last Updated: April 01, 2024

This phrase is used to directly state that someone had a positive status for a particular condition or substance, without specifying the testing process.

Examples:

They were positive for the virus.
The samples were positive for contamination.
The patients were positive for the disease.
The individuals were positive for drug use.
The results were positive for the presence of toxins.

Alternatives:

had a positive status for
showed positive results for
were confirmed to have
were diagnosed with
were identified as positive for

This phrase is used when reporting the outcome of a test, indicating that the person being tested has a positive result for a particular condition or substance.

Examples:

He tested positive for COVID-19.
The athlete tested positive for banned substances.
She tested positive for drugs in the screening.
The patient tested positive for the virus.
The blood sample tested positive for the presence of antibodies.

Alternatives:

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

Answer 1

were positive for

This phrase is correct and is used to state that someone had a positive status without explicitly mentioning the test.

Answer 2

tested positive for

This phrase is correct and commonly used when referring to the result of a test showing a positive outcome.

"were positive for" vs "tested positive for"

were positive for

tested positive for

Related Comparisons