These studies were used to create evidence tables and sum- mary tables that were used by the panel for their deliberations (see Supplement). Because the panel conducted its own systematic re- view using original studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses of RCTs conducted and published by other groups were not in- cluded in the formal evidence review. through December 31, 2009. The search strategy and PRISMA dia- gram for each question is in the online Supplement. To ensure that excluded from consideration, 2 independent searches of PubMed and CINAHL between December 2009 and August 2013 were con- ductedwiththesameMeSHtermsastheoriginalsearch.Threepanel members reviewed the results. The panel limited the inclusion cri- teria of this second search to the following. (1) The study was a ma- not meet strict inclusion criteria because it included nonhyperten- sive participants. SPS3 would not have changed our conclusions/ recommendations because the only significant finding supporting ticentered. (4) The study met all the other inclusion/exclusion cri- teria. The relatively high threshold of 2000 participants was used becauseofthemarkedlylowereventratesobservedinrecentRCTs such as ACCORD, suggesting that larger study populations are neededtoobtaininterpretableresults.Additionally,allpanelmem- bers were asked to identify newly published studies for consider- ation if they met the above criteria. No additional clinical trials met the previously described inclusion criteria. Studies selected were rated for quality using NHLBI s standardized quality rating tool (see Supplement) and were only included if rated as good or fair. An external methodology team performed the literature re- view, summarized data from selected papers into evidence tables, and provided a summary of the evidence. From this evidence re- view, the panel crafted evidence statements and voted on agree- ment or disagreement with each statement. For approved evi- dence statements, the panel then voted on the quality of the evidence (Table 2). 