Can I say it?
Can I say “studies show” in a clinic ad?
Usually no. 2 rules fired across 3 sample sentences, and the checker's own text explains why.
The short answer
Usually no. The checker blocks the bare phrase in this setting. The first rule it hits is CG-TRA-006. Its reason: Citing unnamed studies, doctors or years of research as proof, or giving dramatic percentages, survival gains or risk reductions with no source, is an unsubstantiated efficacy claim.
Source the rule cites: FTC Act section 5; FTC Policy Statement Regarding Advertising Substantiation (1984); FTC Health Products Compliance Guidance (2022)
Checked as an ad promoting a clinical service.
A clear result is not an all-clear. The checker flags wording for review and does not know your evidence, your state or your platform's review. Read the limitations.
Sample wording, run through the checker
These are sentences written to contain the phrase, not real claims. Each ran through the real engine and the shipped rule-set when this site was built.
Studies show our treatment works.
- BlockingCG-TRA-006Efficacy and proof. Matched: “Studies show our treatment works”
- Warning
CG-EFF-003Efficacy and proof. Matched: “Studies show”
Studies show patients see results in a week.
- BlockingCG-TRA-006Efficacy and proof. Matched: “Studies show patients see results”
- Warning
CG-EFF-003Efficacy and proof. Matched: “Studies show”
Studies show this injection beats physical therapy.
- Warning
CG-EFF-003Efficacy and proof. Matched: “Studies show”
What to say instead
This version came back with no rule fired:
Ask us for the published research behind this treatment, with the study named and linked.
What the rules themselves suggest:
- CG-TRA-006 Cite the specific published study, state the population and result accurately, and remove survival or risk claims you cannot substantiate.
- CG-EFF-003 Name the study (authors, journal, year) or link to it next to the claim.
The rules behind this answer
Reason, source and citation for each rule that fired, in the checker's own words. Blocking rules come first.
CG-TRA-006 · Blocks approval · Citation checked against stored text
Citing unnamed studies, doctors or years of research as proof, or giving dramatic percentages, survival gains or risk reductions with no source, is an unsubstantiated efficacy claim.
Source: FTC Act section 5; FTC Policy Statement Regarding Advertising Substantiation (1984); FTC Health Products Compliance Guidance (2022)
Safer wording: Cite the specific published study, state the population and result accurately, and remove survival or risk claims you cannot substantiate.
FTC Policy Statement Regarding Advertising Substantiation · Needs counsel review
CG-EFF-003 · Warns
Appeals to unnamed studies or experts need a citation a reader can check.
Source: FTC Health Products Compliance Guidance; FTC Act section 5
Safer wording: Name the study (authors, journal, year) or link to it next to the claim.
See source text · Needs counsel review
Background: Substantiation in the glossary.
Questions
Which rule covers references to unnamed studies?
Rule CG-TRA-006. It cites FTC Policy Statement Regarding Advertising Substantiation. The rule's reason: Citing unnamed studies, doctors or years of research as proof, or giving dramatic percentages, survival gains or risk reductions with no source, is an unsubstantiated efficacy claim.
What should I write instead?
The rule's own suggestion for rule CG-TRA-006: Cite the specific published study, state the population and result accurately, and remove survival or risk claims you cannot substantiate.
If the checker shows nothing, can I publish?
No. A clean result means none of the checker's rules matched. It does not weigh your evidence, your state or your platform's review, and it is not legal advice. Read the limitations page for what it misses.
Next step
Check your own wording
Paste your copy into the free checker. Every flag names its rule and its source.