"Studies revealed" vs "studies have revealed"

boron

Health writer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
995
Reaction score
46
Location
Europe
Website
www.healthhype.com
Search through Google Scholar:

"studies have revealed" (231,000) is used less commonly than "studies revealed" (315,000)

but

"studies have shown" (2,850,000) is more common than "studies showed" (543,000).

Would it be wrong or sound wrong if I would always use past tense (studies showed, studies revealed)? The point is that, in the context of my articles, rarely all studies show same results, so I want to avoid the feeling of the "persisting consequence," which present perfect gives.

Studies showed that coffee does not cause any significant dehydration.
 

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
16,768
Reaction score
4,663
Location
Scotland
Studies to date (show/have shown) that in (most/the majority of) cases coffee does not...

Take your pick.
 

boron

Health writer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
995
Reaction score
46
Location
Europe
Website
www.healthhype.com
But not "studies showed" or "studies revealed" Sounds weird?

On Mayoclinic.com, they strictly use "studies have revealed," and almost always "studies have shown."
 
Last edited:

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
16,768
Reaction score
4,663
Location
Scotland
'does not' is not past tense.

The 'to date' suggests ongoing, and further studies may produce different results.
 

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
16,768
Reaction score
4,663
Location
Scotland
I can't help any more here, Boron, because I'm not 100% certain I follow what you mean by a 'persisting consequence' or to what that phrase relates.
 

boron

Health writer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
995
Reaction score
46
Location
Europe
Website
www.healthhype.com
Yes, making a sentence with "to date" is an option.

My question is, is the sentence in the past tense: "Studies showed coffee does not..." grammatically wrong or does it sound weird?
 

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
16,768
Reaction score
4,663
Location
Scotland
You could say 'did not' instead of 'does not', but that change would suggest subsequent studies could have showed a different result, and the way you have it at present reads fine to me.

Whether it works or not in context depends upon the context.

Yes, making a sentence with "to date" is an option.

My question is, is the sentence in the past tense: "Studies showed coffee does not..." grammatically wrong or does it sound weird?
 

boron

Health writer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
995
Reaction score
46
Location
Europe
Website
www.healthhype.com
You could say 'did not' instead of 'does not' but that might suggest subsequent studies have showed a different result

This is exactly what I was asking. I intentionally wanted to give this feeling that one or few studies are not already a proof and there are other studies with different results.
 

Snick

Sockpuppet
Banned
Joined
Jun 13, 2011
Messages
934
Reaction score
86
Location
Havatoo
I think that you are over thinking this. Either construction is correct; although there is that small differenc ein meaning, if the studies are continuing. If the Mayo Clinic uses one over the other, then go along.
 

boron

Health writer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
995
Reaction score
46
Location
Europe
Website
www.healthhype.com
My current writing is about nutrients. Ongoing studies constantly reveal something new and I really want to avoid definite answers when they do not exist yet.

"Studies have shown," to me, gives a feeling of something definite, so I was trying to avoid it.
 

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
16,768
Reaction score
4,663
Location
Scotland
Then don't be vague - say what you mean. If other studies have or may produce different results - say so.

Why be vague and assume that everybody who reads it is going to sweat or nit-pick over every nuance. Folk don't do that on web/blog readings. Aim for clarity.

This is exactly what I was asking. I intentionally wanted to give this feeling that one or few studies are not already a proof and there are other studies with different results.
 

mario_c

Your thoughts are not real...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
3,880
Reaction score
685
Location
here
Website
www.mariocaiti.com
The word "have" indicates a passive action. "Studies revealed/showed" indicates an action on the part of the studies, while "Studies have revealed/have shown" indicates an action on the part of whatever was revealed or shown.
We can debate the grammatical correctness of "on the part of" elsewhere. :D
 

boron

Health writer
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
995
Reaction score
46
Location
Europe
Website
www.healthhype.com
"Studies revealed/showed" indicates an action on the part of the studies, while "Studies have revealed/have shown" indicates an action on the part of whatever was revealed or shown.

Great! I write for users, not for scientists, so that speaks for "have shown/revealed..."
 

Architectus

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
387
Reaction score
17
Why not present tense.

Some studies show this, others show that. Then we have the facts you seem to want us to know, without any worry of grammar.
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
In academic writing,as Architectus says, it is common to use simple present tense to express such information:

Studies show that . . .

with appropriate documentation, of course.

The studies still exist, so present tense is entirely appropriate.

caw
 

Jamesaritchie

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
27,863
Reaction score
2,311
Which studies? Unless an article cites sources, usually right there in teh sentence, readers have no reaosn to believe such studies even exist. A 2010 study at Stanford University revealed. . ." makes a writer believable. "Studies reveal" does not.
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
Which studies? Unless an article cites sources, usually right there in teh sentence, readers have no reaosn to believe such studies even exist. A 2010 study at Stanford University revealed. . ." makes a writer believable. "Studies reveal" does not.

I pointed out the issue of documentation in the immediately preceding post (which you evidently didn't read). Which means you have to go beyond the "A 2010 study at Stanford University" to actually cite and properly reference the publication.

But this is a digression that doesn't answer the grammatical issue posed in the OP.

caw
 

Mark G

Author of Reborn to Bite
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 13, 2009
Messages
932
Reaction score
63
Location
Southern California, USA
Website
www.markgronwald.com
I'd go for a less subtle approach if you want to say that "studies in the past have shown" or "studies in the past showed". To make them less relevant, I'd make sure that the reader understood your intention without regard for economy of word use. "Studies previously showed"; "Outdated studies using antiquated methods showed";... (I used your "showed" preference)
 

Sarah Madara

Freeway stomper extraordinaire
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 25, 2010
Messages
1,062
Reaction score
154
Location
Procrastination Nation
My current writing is about nutrients. Ongoing studies constantly reveal something new and I really want to avoid definite answers when they do not exist yet.

"Studies have shown," to me, gives a feeling of something definite, so I was trying to avoid it.

I actually get the opposite impression. "Studies showed that masturbation does not cause blindness" implies more of a closed question than "studies have shown..." in which case my mind inserts the "to date" automatically.

But either way, I agree with the other commenters who say you need to be more specific. You can support almost any argument with a study somewhere. Cite a specific one. If you are able, it's best to give a sense of the nature of the study and relevant statistics, especially sample size. "A 2003 Stanford University study of 800 men found no correlation between vision problems and frequency of masturbation."

If there is good scientific evidence both ways, you need to say so by citing studies for both sides. You should also ideally point out any known flaws in the studies you cite. "Dr. Prudence Faith criticizes the Stanford study for its reliance on self-reported data, and claims that further research is needed before doctors give patients the green light."

Revealed is an odd word, though I know it's used. The invention of the electron microscope revealed stuff. A study generally just finds evidence in support of a hypothesis.

Hope that helps.