Established in the 1960s, the dietary guidelines recommended no more than 300 mg/day of cholesterol for healthy populations in the US. The objective of this presentation is to identify scientific evidence and gaps using a systematic review to examine the effects of dietary cholesterol on cardiovascular risk in healthy adults. A systematic review is a form of research that provides a summary of studies on a specific clinical question, using explicit methods to search, critically appraise, and synthesize the literature systematically. It is particularly useful in bringing together several separately conducted studies and synthesizing their results. Following a systematic review, meta-analyses can be conducted in which data from individual studies are pooled quantitatively and reanalyzed using established statistical methods. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are considered to provide the most robust evidence for evaluating scientific questions related to human health. Of the 40 eligible studies, 19 prospective observational cohorts with 361,923 subjects found no association between dietary cholesterol intake and chronic heart disease or cerebrovascular stroke. In 21 clinical trial articles with 632 subjects, as compared with control, intervention doses of 500 to 900 mg/day of dietary cholesterol interventions increased serum lipids including, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol. Our systematic review identified that there is a lack of long-term data (observational or trials) in healthy adults to support a recommendation of lower intake of dietary cholesterol of no more than 300 mg/day of cholesterol. Additional clinical trials are needed to examine the role of dietary intake of cholesterol between 300 and 500 mg/day on clinical outcomes. These data are based on the Original Publication: Berger S, Raman G*, Vishwanathan R, Jacques PF, Johnson EJ. Dietary cholesterol and cardiovascular disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2015;102:276–294.