Thus, for any given in- dividual patient, the KDIGO Work Group found no evidence that one can reliably estimate the BP that would be obtained under standardized of ce conditions from measurements taken in any other settings. As a result, the Work Group decided that the best evidence-based approach is to use standardized of ce BP for management (see Chapter 1). Practice Point 3.1.1: It is potentially hazardous to apply the recommended SBP target of <120 mm Hg to BP mea- surements obtained in a non-standardized manner. Non-standardized BP measurements frequently yield values that are substantially higher, but sometimes lower, than standardized measurements, in an unpredictable manner for individual patients. Basing BP-lowering therapy decisions on non-standardized BP measurements therefore often risks overtreatment and sometimes undertreatment. In these situ- ations, the risk bene t ratio of BP therapy may not be favorable. chapter 3 www.kidney-international.org Practice Point 3.1.2: Clinicians can reasonably offer less intensive BP-lowering therapy in patients with very limited life expectancy or symptomatic postural hypotension. Individualization based on patient characteristics and preferences with an understanding of the literature, including caveats, is important for proper BP goals and therapy. Research recommendations  Information is needed on how patient values and prefer- ences in uence decisions related to BP-lowering therapy. This would be an ideal topic for the Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology (SONG) initiative.  Conduct adequately powered RCTs to examine the effects of intensive BP control among patients with CKD: (i) with concomitant diabetes; (ii) with concomitant severely increased proteinuria (>1 g/d); or (iii) with very low GFR ). ACCORD included only small numbers of patients with CKD, most of whom quali ed for CKD because of albuminuria, and it is therefore uninfor- mative for patients with CKD G3 G5. On the other hand, SPRINT explicitly excluded patients with diabetes. 