ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2023
The adoption of LI-RADS: a survey of non-academic radiologists.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global disparities in hepatocellular carcinoma care: insights from the ESGAR Global Abdominal Imaging Forum.European radiology · 2026Article
- RADS ALPHABET: news and tips for young and general radiologists.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Knowledge, attitudes and current practices regarding LI-RADSSA journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Standardizing the reporting of cholangiocarcinoma: the society of abdominal radiology disease focused panel on cholangiocarinoma lexicon.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- LI-RADS in 2024: recent updates, planned refinements, and future directions.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- International perspectives on LI-RADS.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- Optimizing US for HCC surveillance.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- Lessons learned: strategies for implementing and the ongoing use of LI-RADS in your practice.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- LI-RADS-based hepatocellular carcinoma risk mapping using contrast-enhanced MRI and self-configuring deep learning.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025Article
- Improving radiology reporting locally and globally: who, how, and why?The British journal of radiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo understand the practice and determinants of non-academic radiologists regarding LI-RADS and the four current LI-RADS algorithms: CT/MRI, contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), ultrasound (US), and CT/MRI Treatment Response. MATERIALS AND
methodsSeven themes were covered in this international survey, as follows: (1) demographics of participants and sub-specialty, (2) HCC practice and interpretation, (3) reporting practice, (4) screening and surveillance, (5) HCC imaging diagnosis, (6) treatment response, and (7) CT and MRI technique.
resultsOf the 232 participants, 69.4% were from the United States, 25.0% from Canada, and 5.6% from other countries and 45.9% were abdominal/body imagers. During their radiology training or fellowship, no formal HCC diagnostic system was used by 48.7% and LI-RADS was used by 44.4% of participants. In their current practice, 73.6% used LI-RADS, 24.7% no formal system, 6.5% UNOS-OPTN, and 1.3% AASLD. Barriers to LI-RADS adoption included lack of familiarity (25.1%), not used by referring clinicians (21.6%), perceived complexity (14.5%), and personal preference (5.3%). The US LI-RADS algorithm was used routinely by 9.9% of respondents and CEUS LI-RADS was used by 3.9% of the respondents. The LI-RADS treatment response algorithm was used by 43.5% of the respondents. 60.9% of respondents thought that webinars/workshops on LI-RADS Technical Recommendations would help them implement these recommendations in their practice.
conclusionA majority of the non-academic radiologists surveyed use the LI-RADS CT/MR algorithm for HCC diagnosis, while nearly half use the LI-RADS TR algorithm for assessment of treatment response. Less than 10% of the participants routinely use the LI-RADS US and CEUS algorithms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.