many studies showed vs a lot studies showed

The phrase 'many studies showed' is correct, while 'a lot studies showed' is incorrect. 'Many studies' is a common phrase used to refer to a large number of research projects, while 'a lot studies' is grammatically incorrect due to the missing article 'of' before 'studies'.

Last updated: March 30, 2024 • 489 views

many studies showed

Correct. 'Many studies showed' is a common phrase used to refer to a significant number of research projects.

This phrase is used to introduce findings from multiple research studies. 'Many studies showed' is followed by the results or conclusions of those studies.

Examples:

Many studies showed a positive correlation between exercise and mental health.
Many studies showed that the new drug is effective in treating the disease.
Many studies showed different outcomes when comparing various treatment methods.
Many studies showed conflicting results on the impact of caffeine consumption.
Many studies showed a decrease in pollution levels over the past decade.

Show examples from the web [+]

Animal reproduction studies showed that degarelix caused infertility in male animals.
The study showed that food companies exaggerated typically seven times more than an independent study.
Studies showed that the test method used under that Directive no longer reflected real life driving behaviour in urban traffic.
Reproduction toxicity studies showed reduced gamete maturation in rat and adverse effects on fertilization.
The study showed that Celvapan produced an antibody response that met these criteria.
Reproductive toxicity studies showed no effect of ivabradine on fertility in male and female rats.
Animal studies showed that daptomycin is not absorbed to any significant extent after oral administration.
The study showed that Daronrix containing 15 micrograms of haemagglutinin and the adjuvant produced an antibody response that satisfies these criteria.
The additional studies showed that Caelyx was also more effective than the comparator combinations.
In vitro transport studies showed that sitagliptin is a substrate for p-glycoprotein and OAT3.
The study showed that Focetria produced an antibody response that satisfies these criteria.
Both in vitro and in vivo studies showed no signs of QT prolongation.
Study Showed No Signs Of Scarring In Kenny's Heart.
The histological study showed that 42% of the patient was carrying...
A mass balance study showed that approximately 57% of radiolabelled olanzapine appeared in urine, principally as metabolites.
Toxicokinetic studies showed no interaction of the antibodies with the measured concentrations.
The additional study showed that the oral solution and the tablets were equally effective in preventing rejection.
The studies showed that Stalevo is bioequivalent to the separate tablets.
Limited results from open label studies showed an acceptable response to MMR and varicella.
The problems of double taxation are relatively rare, as our study showed.

a lot studies showed

Incorrect. 'A lot studies showed' is grammatically incorrect due to the missing article 'of' before 'studies'.

Show examples from the web [+]

Animal reproduction studies showed that degarelix caused infertility in male animals.
Studies showed that the test method used under that Directive no longer reflected real life driving behaviour in urban traffic.
Reproduction toxicity studies showed reduced gamete maturation in rat and adverse effects on fertilization.
The study showed that Celvapan produced an antibody response that met these criteria.
Reproductive toxicity studies showed no effect of ivabradine on fertility in male and female rats.
Animal studies showed that daptomycin is not absorbed to any significant extent after oral administration.
The study showed that Daronrix containing 15 micrograms of haemagglutinin and the adjuvant produced an antibody response that satisfies these criteria.
The additional studies showed that Caelyx was also more effective than the comparator combinations.
In vitro transport studies showed that sitagliptin is a substrate for p-glycoprotein and OAT3.
The study showed that Focetria produced an antibody response that satisfies these criteria.
Both in vitro and in vivo studies showed no signs of QT prolongation.
Study Showed No Signs Of Scarring In Kenny's Heart.
The histological study showed that 42% of the patient was carrying...
A mass balance study showed that approximately 57% of radiolabelled olanzapine appeared in urine, principally as metabolites.
Toxicokinetic studies showed no interaction of the antibodies with the measured concentrations.
The additional study showed that the oral solution and the tablets were equally effective in preventing rejection.
The studies showed that Stalevo is bioequivalent to the separate tablets.
Limited results from open label studies showed an acceptable response to MMR and varicella.
The problems of double taxation are relatively rare, as our study showed.
The San Antonio study showed no significant difference in one year survival rates.

Alternatives:

A lot of studies showed
Numerous studies showed
Several studies showed
Multiple studies showed
Plenty of studies showed

What Our Customers Are Saying

Our customers love us! We have an average rating of 4.79 stars based on 283,125 votes.
Also check out our 2,100+ reviews on TrustPilot (4.9).

"Thank you!"
Sachi Nakama July 2024
"I have literally been through chat, PI, claude, bard and bing and I got conflicting answers! Thank you! Human intelligence reigns!"
Retha July 2024
"Faster than AI"
CYNTHIA December 2023
"This was very helpful and I personally think this site is the best."
Kaden October 2023
"It was extremely thorough and very helpful!"
imperialelisa October 2023
"7 years without any disappointment. Always 100% satisfied. You guys are the best in the world at what you do. Thank you so much :)"
Zubair Alam October 2023
"In a world of text messages and online communication, this is great to have as a live tool. Thank you."
Selena October 2023
"Without textranch I would be stuck!"
宏祐 October 2023
"Accuracy and fast response. Personal comments from editor. Thank you."
Clh September 2023
"I wasn't aware of this service, it's fascinating and more reliable than standard IA tools available on the internet"
Arturo September 2023
"The fact that you can get reliable fast feedback on your texts."
Vinicius Antonio August 2023
"you guys are better than grammarly i'm being honest here"
ordinary July 2023
"OMG! This is really good than any other text correction tools I've used so far. Highly recommend this."
Vehan July 2023
"Very fast and accurate. thank you."
mojtaba July 2023
"I love this app because it's help to writing skills all of students ♥️"
Tarisini July 2023
"This was exactly the mistake I was looking for, the wording dind´t sound right at first. Better than grammarly!"
Ente July 2023
"The immediate help that I received was reassuring and very satisfactory. Thanks."
priiiyanshuu July 2023
"this helps A LOT for my studies."
kathnunez02 June 2023
"Woow!! I would never have expected such precision! Thank you soooo much!!"
Berta June 2023
"Real Time Editor and not AI. Many Thanks."
Priya June 2023
"The very first thing excites me about Textranch is how much your editors care."
sepideh June 2023
"The fact that texts are checked by human editors rather than by AI, etc. I appreciate this!"
Анна June 2023
"Feel welcome, immediate response, high quality feedback"
martin.roy June 2023
"This is the best app that I have ever seen"
Burulai May 2023

many studies showed vs a lot studies showed