*3.4. Risk of Bias Assessment*

The results of the assessment using the NOS are presented in Supplementary Tables S4 and S5. The quality assessment of the cross-sectional and cohort studies based on the JBI checklists are presented in Supplementary Tables S6 and S7, respectively. For the crosssectional studies, the articles did not provide enough information about the study subjects and the setting. Regarding the appraisal of the cohort studies, only two studies [22,27] had sufficient follow-up time for the outcome of interest to occur.

#### *3.5. Subgroup and Sensitivity Analysis*

We conducted a subgroup analysis based on the hypertension diagnosis (i.e., SBP ≥ 140 and/or DBP ≥ 90 or antihypertensive medication use versus self-report of hypertension). The results of the subgroup analysis indicate that there is no difference between the two methods used for hypertension diagnosis. Specifically, the pooled estimate for diagnosis of hypertension based on values of SBP ≥ 140 and/or DBP ≥ 90 or the use of antihypertensive medication was HR: 0.85 (95% CI 0.77–0.95, *I* <sup>2</sup> = 0%). On the other hand, the summary effect for the self-report of hypertension method was HR: 0.75 (95% CI 0.60–0.95, *I* <sup>2</sup> = 88%) (Supplementary Figure S1).

A sensitivity analysis has also been conducted to assess the robustness of the findings. In this analysis, cohort studies with a NOS score < 7 were removed. The results of the sensitivity analysis were HR: 0.81, 95% CI 0.71–0.92, *I* <sup>2</sup> = 4%, PI 0.64–1.01 (Supplementary Figure S2).
