Disclaimer
This Guideline attempts to define principles of practice that should produce high-quality patient
care. It is applicable to specialists, primary care, and providers at all levels. This Guideline should not
be considered exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed at obtaining the same results.
The ultimate judgment concerning the propriety of any course of conduct must be made by the
clinician after consideration of each individual patient situation.
Neither IGC, the medical associations, nor the authors endorse any product or service associated
with the distributor of this clinical reference tool.
Abbreviations
BP, blood pressure; CVD, cardiovascular disease; DASH, Dietary Approaches to Stop
Hypertension; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; DRI, dietary reference intakes; HTN,
hypertension; MNT, Medical Nutrition Therapy; RDN, registered dietitian nutritionist; SBP,
systolic blood pressure
Source
Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Hypertension (2015) Evidence-Based Nutrition Practice
Guideline, Chicago, IL.
To view the entire Hypertension 2015 Guideline, including introduction, scope, harms/
benefits and supporting evidence, visit www.andeal.org/htn
106 Commerce Street, Suite 105
Lake Mary, FL 32746
TEL: 407.878.7606 • FAX: 407.878.7611
Order additional copies at GuidelineCentral.com
Copyright © 2018 All rights reserved
ANDHTN1832
Criteria for Recommendation Ratings
Statement Definition
Strong
• Benefits clearly exceed the harms (or harms clearly exceed the
benefits for a negative recommendation)
• The quality of the supporting evidence is excellent/good
(grade I or II)
Fair
• Benefits exceed the harms (or harms clearly exceed the benefits for a
negative recommendation)
• Quality of evidence is not as strong (grade II or III)
Weak
• Quality of evidence that exists is suspect
• Or that well-done studies (grade I, II or III) show little clear advantage
to one approach versus another
Consensus
• Expert opinion (grade IV) supports the guideline recommendation
Insufficient
Evidence
• Both a lack of pertinent evidence (grade V) and/or an unclear balance
between benefits and harms
