Evaluating the reproducibility and verifiability of nutrition research: a case study of studies assessing the relationship between potatoes and colorectal cancer.

The credibility of nutritional research is dependent on the rigor with which studies are conducted and the ability for independent assessment to be performed. Despite the importance of these, more work is needed in the field of nutrition to buttress the trustworthiness of nutrition research. To develop and apply a process for evaluating the rigor, reproducibility, and verifiability of nutritional research, using the relationship between potato consumption and Colorectal Cancer (CRC) as a case study. We updated existing systematic reviews to include studies on potatoes and CRC, assessing their design, execution, and reporting quality. We attempted to reproduce and verify the results of included studies by requesting raw data from authors and following statistical methods as described in the publications. Rigor was evaluated using four different tools: ROBINS-E, STROBE-Nut, Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and additional criteria related to transparency. Eighteen studies were included, none of which publicly share data. We managed to access data for only two studies, successfully reproducing and verifying the results for one. The majority of studies exhibited a high risk of bias, with significant limitations in reporting quality and methodological rigor. Research on the relationship between potato consumption and CRC risk is insufficiently reproducible and verifiable, undermining the trustworthiness of its findings. This study highlights the need for improving transparency, data sharing, and methodological rigor in nutritional research. Our approach provides a model for assessing the credibility of research in other areas of nutrition.