BackgroundCardiovascular morbidity and mortality was reduced by 25% when blood pressure (BP) was targeted to 120 mm Hg systolic compared with 140 mm Hg systolic in Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT); however, BP was measured using a research technique. SPRINT specified 5 minutes of seated rest in a quiet room followed by 3 oscillometric measurements without an observer in the room. The relationship of this research‐grade methodology to routine BP measurements is not known.Methods and ResultsAmong 275 people with chronic kidney disease who had BP <140/90 mm Hg when they came to the clinic, we measured BP as in SPRINT and recorded BP on the same day without specification of seated rest. Compared with routine measurement, the research‐grade systolic BP was 12.7 mm Hg lower with wide limits of agreement (−46.1 to 20.7 mm Hg). Research grade systolic BP was 7.9 mm Hg lower than daytime ambulatory systolic BP and had wide agreement limits (−33.2 to 17.4 mm Hg). Whereas the routine, research‐grade, and daytime ambulatory systolic BP were all related to echocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy, the strength of the relationship between research‐grade and daytime ambulatory systolic BP to left ventricular hypertrophy was similar and stronger than the strength of the relationship between routine systolic BP and left ventricular hypertrophy.ConclusionsTaken together, these results suggest that translation of the SPRINT results will require measurement of BP as performed in that trial. Instead of an algebraic manipulation of routine clinic measurements, the SPRINT methodology of BP measurement would be needed at minimum if implementation of the SPRINT results were to be deployed in the population at large.