The outcome criteria used for the diagnosis of renovascular hypertension (RVHT) following renal revascularization have not been validated. Differing criteria of indeterminate accuracy have yielded conflicting conclusions concerning the prevalence and efficacy of treatment of RVHT. We compared the accuracy of conventional outcome criteria used in the diagnosis of RVHT to that of novel, ordered outcome analysis to determine whether such an analysis might provide a more consistent means of diagnosing RVHT. Twenty-seven patients underwent intervention for treatment of presumed RVHT (group I), and 40 patients with presumed essential hypertension were treated with antihypertensive medication alone (group II). A standard dichotomized (improved or unimproved) outcome scheme and a five-level, ordered outcome scheme (ranging from definitely unimproved to definitely improved) were used to generate nominal outcomes of therapy for each patient. The resultant outcome groups were examined to determine the effect of such partitioning on blood pressure and medication requirements. To determine their diagnostic accuracy, the conventional and ordered outcome schemes were compared with a consensus outcome scheme derived from the use of numerous criteria. Significant correlations were observed between the ordered outcome score and posttreatment reductions in systolic blood pressure (r = 0.53, p = 0.007), diastolic blood pressure (r = 0.74, p = 0.0001), and medication score (r = 0.71, p = 0.0001). Overall diagnostic accuracy was estimated to be 91% for ordered criteria and 85% for dichotomized criteria. Correlation of the ordered and conventional schemes' assignments with the consensus scheme's assignments was 0.79 (p = 0.0001) and 0.63 (p = 0.0001), respectively. A simple, ordered outcome scheme compares favorably with the standard dichotomized scheme in assigning a diagnosis of RVHT to patients following renal revascularization or nephrectomy. The ordered scheme offers the advantages of simplicity and accuracy over current schemes.