logo
Please note!
This fact brief was originally published as an experiment to test the concepts behind fact briefs.
Readers should be aware that while there is still a lot of useful information in fact briefs like this one, not all of them reflect Gigafact's current methods and standards for fact briefs. If you come across any that you feel are out of date, don't hesitate to contact us at support@gigafact.org.
Brief Publisher Logo
FACT BRIEF

Do researchers caution against overreliance on 'rapid' tests for the coronavirus?

By Esther Tsvayg
Copy link
email
Copy featured image
email
YES

The Food and Drug Administration has approved six "rapid" coronavirus tests for emergency use, and they are being used, for example, to screen air travelers and event participants (as at the White House). Based on data so far, they are more likely to fail to detect the presence of the virus than lab tests that usually take longer to process.

Researchers think that even if imperfect, large-scale use can help monitor risks from the virus across the population. Health authorities caution that a negative result from a single test is not conclusive, and does not eliminate the need for other preventative measures such as masks and social distancing. "The White House outbreak is a very good illustration of the limitations of rapid testing," MIT Technology Review said. "But it should not deter us from the strategy entirely—we just need to use the technology properly."

This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.
Sources
FDA: 'Antigen' tests authorized for emergency use
United Airlines: First US carrier to make COVID-19 tests available to customers
MIT: How accurate is the COVID-19 diagnostic test?
Centers for Disease Control: Interim guidance for rapid antigen testing
STAT: Even imperfect COVID-19 tests can help control the pandemic
MIT Technology Review: Rapid COVID tests can work if you avoid making the White House's mistakes
ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTOR
Gigafact
Between 2020 and 2022, under close editorial supervision, Gigafact contracted a group of freelance writers and editors to test the concepts for fact briefs and provide inputs to our software development process. We call this effort Gigafact Foundry. Over the course of these two years, Gigafact Foundry writers published over 1500 fact briefs in response to claims they found online. Their important work forms the basis of Gigafact formats and editorial guidelines, and is available to the public on Gigafact.org. Readers should be aware that while there is still a lot of relevant information to be found, not all fact briefs produced by Gigafact Foundry reflect Gigafact's current methods and standards for fact briefs. If you come across any that you feel are out of date and need to be looked at with fresh eyes, don't hesitate to contact us at support@gigafact.org.
FACT BRIEF BY
Brief Publisher Logo
Latest fact briefs
facebook
twitter
email
email
About fact briefs published on Gigafact
Fact briefs are short, credibly sourced summaries that offer “yes/no” answers in response to claims found online. They rely on publicly available, often primary source data and documents. Fact briefs are created by contributors to Gigafact —a nonprofit project looking to expand participation in fact-checking and protect the democratic process. See all fact briefs here.