About the Author(s)


Rajshree Segobin Email symbol
Department of Radiation Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

Dale Creamer symbol
Department of Radiation Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

Rufaida Khan symbol
Department of Surgery, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

Eduard Jonas symbol
Department of Surgery, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

Sanju Sobnach symbol
Department of Surgery, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

Sulaiman Moosa symbol
Department of Radiation Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

Citation


Segobin R, Creamer D, Khan R, Jonas E, Sobnach S, Moosa S. Knowledge, attitudes and current practices regarding LI-RADS®: A survey from 14 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. S Afr J Rad. 2026;30(1), a3367. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajr.v30i1.3367

Original Research

Knowledge, attitudes and current practices regarding LI-RADS®: A survey from 14 countries in sub-Saharan Africa

Rajshree Segobin, Dale Creamer, Rufaida Khan, Eduard Jonas, Sanju Sobnach, Sulaiman Moosa

Received: 15 Nov. 2025; Accepted: 06 Jan. 2026; Published: 23 Feb. 2026

Copyright: © 2026. The Authors. Licensee: AOSIS.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Abstract

Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is highly prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). LI-RADS® is a standardised system for imaging-based diagnosis and characterisation of HCC.

Objectives: This study assessed knowledge, attitudes and current practices related to LI-RADS in SSA, with a view to identifying barriers to its utilisation and informing targeted educational interventions.

Method: A 21-item anonymous electronic questionnaire was distributed to medical professionals in SSA using the SurveyMonkey online platform. Knowledge, attitudes and current practices regarding LI-RADS® were assessed. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, and comparisons were made between radiologists and non-radiologists.

Results: There were 134 respondents from 14 of the 34 SSA countries. Radiologists significantly outperformed non-radiologists in LI-RADS® knowledge, particularly regarding its purpose (65.6% vs 38.2%, p = 0.0007), arterial phase hyperenhancement definition (90.3% vs 59.8%, p = 0.004) and size criteria (77.4% vs 45.1%, p = 0.003) for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, 43.8% of radiologists and 63.4% of non-radiologists did not recognise the limitations of LI-RADS®. Only 34.3% stated that LI-RADS® was their reporting standard and 29.1% of the respondents indicated that less than 25% of their radiological reports adhered to LI-RADS®. The majority (78.3%) of participants stated they preferred radiology reports for high-risk liver lesions to be LI-RADS®-standardised. The two main barriers to adopting LI-RADS® included lack of consistency (44.8%) and unfamiliarity with the reporting system (27.6%).

Conclusion: Although LI-RADS® remains the preferred reporting system for HCC, there are significant gaps in its knowledge and implementation across SSA.

Contribution: This survey highlights the needs for targeted educational initiatives and improved training to enhance the adoption and use of LI-RADS® in SSA.

Keywords: LI-RADS®; knowledge; attitudes; education; sub-Saharan Africa; hepatocellular carcinoma.

Introduction

The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) continues to rise globally. By the year 2040, the annual mortality of HCC is expected to reach 1.3 million.1,2 In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), HCC is a public health emergency, and chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is the main aetiology.3,4 The median age at presentation ranges between 28–54 years old, and most patients present with advanced disease. Less than 1% are offered curative-intended therapies, and only 2% are alive at 1 year.4,5

Currently, the diagnosis of HCC is almost exclusively made using contrast-enhanced (CE) imaging. In patients with non-cirrhotic tumours and normal serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels and/or atypical imaging findings, biopsy and histology will confirm the diagnosis.6,7,8,9,10,11,12

LI-RADS®, developed by the American College of Radiology in 2011, is a quality assurance tool that standardises the reporting of liver lesions at risk of HCC.13 Subsequent revisions of LI-RADS® have resulted in a taxonomic system that promotes effective discussion and decision-making in multi-disciplinary teams (MDTs) (hepatologists, surgeons, radiologists, oncologists and palliative care physicians) caring for HCC patients.9,10,14,15

Perceived complexity, lack of training and available radiological infrastructure are potential barriers to the use of LI-RADS® globally.16,17,18,19 In SSA, it remains unclear whether HCC MDTs have formally adopted LI-RADS®. Currently, surveys examining the factors that impact on LI-RADS® utilisation among medical professionals emanate mostly from high-income countries (HICs) and have not been conducted in SSA.15,16,19,20

The aim of this study was to describe and analyse the knowledge, attitudes and perceptions, as well as the current practices of medical professionals regarding LI-RADS® in SSA, with a view to identifying barriers to its use and designing and implementing educational programmes on the subcontinent.

Research methods and design

A previously validated self-administered 21-item anonymous questionnaire was distributed to the target population using the online platform SurveyMonkey (https://www.surveymonkey.com). The survey comprised four sections: (1) seven knowledge-based questions regarding the LI-RADS® lexicon; (2) four questions dealing with the attitudes and perceptions of the respondents towards LI-RADS®; (3) three questions addressing the current practises of LI-RADS® by participating respondents at their respective home institutions; and (4) seven demographic questions, including country of practice, hospital setting (academic vs private), specialty, staff grade, experience (years), number of HCC patients seen monthly and number of CT and/or MRI scans reviewed per month. For the purposes of this study, the operational definition of an attitude was a permanent disposition or reaction that represents an individual’s degree of approval or disapproval regarding a particular issue.

A survey web link was thus distributed electronically to registered participants of the Gastroenterology-Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (G-ECHO) educational platform of the Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation of SSA ahead of a LI-RADS® webinar. Upon completion of the survey, data were extracted using SurveyMonkey tools (https://www.surveymonkey.com) and then imported and stored on a password-locked spreadsheet registry (Microsoft Excel, Redmond, WA, USA). Descriptive statistical methods were used to determine the response rates of the study participants across the various questionnaire categories. Responses were also filtered by specific sub-group (radiologist vs non-radiologist) for sub-group analysis. A questionnaire was deemed complete and suitable for analysis if all sections were completed. Incomplete questionnaires were excluded from the study.

Ethical considerations

The Human Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of Cape Town granted ethical approval for this study (reference numbers: IRB00001938, HREC REF: 961/2023). Institutional permission was further obtained prior to surveying university staff for research purposes.

Results

One hundred thirty-six doctors were surveyed. Two respondents submitted incomplete questionnaires and were excluded from further analyses. The study thus comprised 134 participants, who were from 14 of the 34 SSA countries. More than three quarters (n = 105/134, 78.4%) were from South Africa, Mozambique and Botswana, with the highest number of respondents (n = 75/134, 56%) from South Africa (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1: Country of practice of respondents in this study (N = 134).

The study population comprised predominantly radiologists (n = 32/134, 23.9%) and general surgeons (n = 33/134, 24.6%). Of the 32 radiologists, 30 were diagnostic radiologists and two were interventionists. Most of the study participants (n = 93/134, 69.4%) practised at academic institutions. Sixty-five (48.5%) were consultant-grade staff, and 57 (42.5%) had five to ten years of work experience. Close to half (n = 65/134, 48.5%) of the respondents saw less than five HCC cases, and 91 (67.5%) reviewed less than five CT and/or MRI scans for HCC per month. Twenty-five (18.7%) participants reported that they did not see any HCC patients in their practice (Table 1).

TABLE 1: Participant characteristics (N = 134).

In five of the seven knowledge-based questions, radiologists significantly outperformed non-radiologists. Most importantly, radiologists had higher levels of knowledge regarding the reasons for which LI-RADS® was created (p = 0.007) and its ability to categorise malignant lesions on CE-imaging (p = 0.026). They were also better versed with the size criteria requirement (p = 0.003) and the concept of arterial phase enhancement (p = 0.004) required for diagnosing HCC (Table 2).

TABLE 2: Knowledge of LI-RADS® among 134 medical doctors from sub-Saharan Africa.

Clinicians and radiologists had similar levels of knowledge regarding the target patient population for LI-RADS® (p = 0.913) and its limitation in the paediatric population (p = 0.135). However, it is noteworthy that 35.8% of the entire cohort were not aware that LI-RADS® could not be used in patients younger than 18 years of age. Eighteen (56.2%) of the 32 radiologists who took part in this study did not know that LI-RADS® could not be used in patients with liver cirrhosis resulting from Budd-Chiari syndrome.

Less than half (n = 46/134, 34.3%) of the study participants stated that their institutions used LI-RADS® to report on HCC (Table 3). Thirty-nine (29.1%) participants mentioned that only 0% to 25% of their CT/MRI followed LI-RADS® reporting standards. In this survey, the two main barriers to adopting LI-RADS® were lack of consistency in reporting by radiologists (n = 60/134, 44.8%) and lack of familiarity (n = 37/134, 27.6%) with LI-RADS® criteria.

TABLE 3: Current practices and LI-RADS® utilisation reported by study participants.

With regard to the attitudes of participating clinicians, most participants (78.3%) stated that LI-RADS® would be their preferred reporting system for HCC (Table 4). However, 52.2% (n = 70/134) of the survey respondents either did not feel confident to use LI-RADS® or did not use the system at all. As far as educational expectations were concerned, 55 (41%) agreed that routine use of LI-RADS® in MDT meetings would further their understanding of HCC and enhance the utilisation thereof.

TABLE 4: Attitudes and perceptions regarding LI-RADS® among 134 study participants.

Discussion

High-resolution CE abdominal imaging forms an integral part of diagnostic and treatment algorithms for HCC.6,7,19 Hence, LI-RADS® has emerged as an essential tool to streamline and standardise communication in HCC MDT meetings.8,9,10,11,12,14,19,21,22 The global burden of HCC lies predominantly in SSA and South-East Asia, but paradoxically almost all the studies examining the knowledge and perspectives of doctors regarding LI-RADS® come from HICs.1,2,15,16,18,20 Recently, the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association (IHPBA) identified HCC in SSA as a public health priority.23 Through a Legacy project, the IHPBA has drafted initiatives aimed at improving management pathways and access to care for HCC patients in SSA. One of the key components of this project includes the education of HCC MDT members.24 In line with the Legacy project, we conducted a multi-centre survey in SSA to examine the knowledge, current practices as well as the attitudes and perceptions of doctors regarding the LI-RADS® system. The findings of this study will be used to develop educational initiatives for MDTs geared towards improving HCC treatment in SSA.

One hundred and thirty-four respondents from 14 SSA countries were included in the analysis, making it the most comprehensive study of its kind in the current literature. There were significant disparities in the knowledge of LI-RADS® between radiologists and non-radiologists. Expectedly, radiologists performed better than clinicians in five of the seven knowledge-based questions. It is worthwhile noting that this survey explored basic LI-RADS® concepts rather than specific imaging technicalities for HCC. As many HCC MDTs in SSA comprise mostly of general medical practitioners, the latter are expected to be familiar with basic LI-RADS® concepts to ensure optimal communication throughout the treatment journey of these patients.3,4,25,26

Significant deficiencies in LI-RADS® knowledge in both sub-groups were noted. A high proportion of radiologists (43.8%) and non-radiologists (63.4%) were unaware that LI-RADS® cannot be applied to cirrhosis resulting from Budd–Chiari syndrome. Furthermore, more than half of the respondents in both groups failed to recognise that paediatric patients cannot be assessed using LI-RADS®. LI-RADS® is typically not applied to cases of cirrhosis from vascular conditions because benign hyperplastic nodules can be misinterpreted as HCC lesions. LI-RADS® has not been standardised in the paediatric population because of the low incidence of HCC in this sub-group of patients.9,10,11,14

In a nationwide survey from Germany, Ringe et al. examined the awareness and application of LI-RADS® by consultants and trainees in tumour boards. Although 73.2% of the 77 respondents were aware of LIRADS®, only 19.2% used the classification when assessing patients with liver malignancy.20 These data are also echoed in another multi-centre North American study by Marks et al., where 48.7% of participating radiologists acknowledged that they did not use a formal reporting system for HCC during residency.16 In the current study, just over a third of all respondents stated that LI-RADS® was the reporting standard for HCC at their respective institutions. These findings highlight the need for formal teaching and improved exposure to the LI-RADS® classification system during residency training.

Although most clinicians were in favour of the routine use of LI-RADS® in HCC care, the results of this survey showed that there are significant disparities in practice. Only a small number of clinicians (n = 17/134,12.7%) used the system in their daily practice, and 29.1% of the respondents reported that less than 25% of radiological reports were LI-RADS® compliant.

Moreover, more than a quarter of participants (n = 37/134, 27.6%) reported a lack of familiarity with LI-RADS® criteria, despite it being the overall preferred reporting system. Over half of study participants (n = 70/134, 52.2%) also stated that they did not feel confident using LI-RADS® or did not use it at all.

Formal training of MDTs is a critical step in enhancing the use of LI-RADS® globally. The survey participants were in favour of such an approach and considered the routine use of LI-RADS® criteria at MDT meetings an effective means to boost their understanding thereof. These data are further supported by a survey of non-academic radiologists conducted by Marks et al., who showed that 60.9% of their radiologists suggested webinars and workshops to improve their LI-RADS® knowledge.16 Among the 134 respondents in the current survey, the majority (93.3%) would adopt LI-RADS® as their reporting standard for HCC. Perceived complexity of the LI-RADS® system has been reported as a significant challenge in its adoption, a concern expressed by 12% to 14.5% of participants in large studies.16 In this SSA cohort, only 4.5% were concerned about the complexity LI-RADS®.

Lastly, a significant challenge in the widespread adoption of CT/MRI LI-RADS® remains the paucity of high-field-strength MR scanners in SSA.27,28,29,30,31 In LI-RADS®, 1.5 Tesla (T) to 3.0T magnets are recommended in the diagnosis of HCC. Low magnetic field strength MRI is associated with a low signal-to-noise ratio, poor spatial resolution and inferior enhancement after gadolinium administration, which makes the detection of small HCCs difficult.16,17 More than 15% of North American radiologists have previously reported using less than 1.5T MR scanners.16 Future initiatives will need to focus on expanding the use of CE ultrasound and training thereof in the region.

Limitations

A few study limitations are acknowledged. This study was voluntary and thus included only a proportion of doctors treating HCC in SSA. There is heterogeneity in the case volume, expertise and hospital infrastructure where patients are treated for HCC throughout SSA.3,4,25,26 Over half of the respondents (56%) were based in South Africa, which can limit the generalisability of the study findings to the broader SSA context. South Africa’s larger and more elaborate healthcare system and research infrastructure may not reflect the resource constraints, training exposure and imaging service availability in many other SSA countries. Thus, the results of this study should be interpreted contextually. These factors are potential confounders that can influence the knowledge and perspectives of the study respondents.

Conclusion

This survey of clinicians and radiologists in SSA highlights the current knowledge, attitudes and perceptions regarding LI-RADS®. Timeous diagnosis of HCC is key to improving the prognosis of HCC on the African subcontinent. LI-RADS® strives to achieve a common language for the definitive imaging diagnosis of HCC in high-risk patients globally. Facilitation of effective inter-disciplinary discussions using LI-RADS® will ensure the early referral and management of patients with lesions at risk for HCC. The findings of the study will potentially influence and direct stakeholders to implement future educational interventions relevant to the subcontinent.

Acknowledgements

This article includes content that overlaps with research originally conducted as part of Rajshree Segobin’s Masters of Medicine in Diagnostic Radiology thesis titled ‘Reporting hepatocellular carcinoma using LI-RADS: A multidisciplinary survey’, submitted to the Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town in 2025. The thesis was supervised by Sulaiman Moosa. Portions of the data, analysis, and discussion have been revised, updated, and adapted for publication as a journal article. The original thesis is not publicly available. The author affirms that this article complies with ethical standards for secondary publication, and appropriate acknowledgement has been made of the original work.

Competing interests

The author, Sulaiman Moosa, serves as an editorial board member of this journal. Rajshree Segobin, Dale Creamer, Rufaida Khan, Eduard Jonas and Sanju Sobnach have no other competing interests to declare.

CRediT authorship contribution

Rajshree Segobin: Conceptualisation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Validation, Visualisation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Dale Creamer: Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualisation, Writing – review & editing. Rufaida Khan: Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Writing – review & editing. Eduard Jonas: Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Visualisation, Witing – review & editing. Sanju Sobnach: Conceptualisation, Investigation, Resources, Visualisation, Writing – review & editing. Sulaiman Moosa: Conceptualisation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Validation, Visualisation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. All authors reviewed the article, contributed to the discussion of results, approved the final version for submission and publication and take responsibility for the integrity of its findings.

Funding information

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study, including anonymised individual data that were analysed in this study, are available from the corresponding author, Rajshree Segobin, upon request and with a written protocol.

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. The article does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.

References

  1. Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2024;74(3):229–263. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21834
  2. Rumgay H, Arnold M, Ferlay J, et al. Global burden of primary liver cancer in 2020 and predictions to 2040. J Hepatol. 2022;77(6):1598–1606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2022.08.021
  3. Spearman CW, Dusheiko G, Jonas E, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma: Measures to improve the outlook in sub-Saharan Africa. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;7(11):1036–1048. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(22)00041-3
  4. Sobnach S, Kotze U, Spearman CW, et al. The management and outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review. HPB (Oxford). 2024;26(1):21–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2023.09.015
  5. Yang JD, Mohamed EA, Aziz AO, et al. Characteristics, management, and outcomes of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in Africa: A multicountry observational study from the Africa Liver Cancer Consortium. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;2(2):103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(16)30161-3
  6. Reig M, Forner A, Rimola J, et al. BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update. J Hepatol. 2022;76(3):681–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2021.11.018
  7. Taddei TH, Brown DB, Yarchoan M, Mendiratta-Lala M, Llovet JM. Critical update: AASLD practice guidance on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 2025;82(1):272–274. https://doi.org/10.1097/HEP.0000000000001269
  8. Marks RM, Masch WR, Chernyak V. LI-RADS: Past, present, and future, from the AJR special series on radiology reporting and data systems. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021;216(2):295–304. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.20.24272
  9. Choi SH, Fowler KJ, Chernyak V, Sirlin CB. LI-RADS: Current status and future directions. Korean J Radiol. 2024;25(12):1039–1046. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2024.0161
  10. Chernyak V, Fowler KJ, Kamaya A, et al. Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) version 2018: Imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma in at-risk patients. Radiology. 2018;289(3):816–830. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018181494
  11. G MC, Fowler KJ, Roudenko A, et al. How to use LI-RADS to report liver CT and MRI observations. Radiographics. 2021;41(5):1352–1367. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2021200205
  12. Kamath A, Roudenko A, Hecht E, et al. CT/MR LI-RADS 2018: Clinical implications and management recommendations. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2019;44(4):1306–1322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1868-6
  13. Sobnach S, Ede C, Der GV, Klopper J, Bhyat A, Kahn D. A study comparing outcomes of appendectomy between HIV-infected and HIV-negative patients. Chirurgia (Bucur). 2019;114(4):467–474. https://doi.org/10.21614/chirurgia.114.4.467
  14. Chernyak V, Fowler KJ, Do RKG, et al. LI-RADS: Looking back, looking forward. Radiology. 2023;307(1):e222801. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.222801
  15. Lim YT, Low HM, Tan CH. Referring clinicians’ knowledge, attitudes and practice towards international guidelines for liver cancer diagnosis in Singapore. Singapore Med J. 2024;65(5):302–317. https://doi.org/10.11622/smedj.2022092
  16. Marks RM, Fung A, Cruite I, et al. The adoption of LI-RADS: A survey of non-academic radiologists. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2023;48(8):2514–2524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-023-03951-9
  17. Kambadakone AR, Fung A, Gupta RT, et al. LI-RADS technical requirements for CT, MRI, and contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2018;43(1):56–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1325-y
  18. Alenazi AO, Elsayes KM, Marks RM, et al. Clinicians and surgeon survey regarding current and future versions of CT/MRI LI-RADS. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2020;45(8):2603–2611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02544-0
  19. Cannella R, Dioguardi Burgio M, Sartoris R, Gregory J, Vilgrain V, Ronot M. Adherence to LI-RADS and EASL high-risk population criteria: A systematic review. Hepatology. 2023;77(6):1958–1967. https://doi.org/10.1097/HEP.0000000000000321
  20. Ringe KI, Gut A, Grenacher L, et al. LI-RADS in the year 2020 – Are you already using it or still considering? Rofo. 2021;193(2):186–193. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1212-5915
  21. Flusberg M, Ganeles J, Ekinci T, et al. Impact of a structured report template on the quality of CT and MRI reports for hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosis. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14(9):1206–1211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2017.02.050
  22. Liang Y, Xu F, Guo Y, et al. Diagnostic performance of LI-RADS for MRI and CT detection of HCC: A systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis. Eur J Radiol. 2021;134:109404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2020.109404
  23. Jonas E, Smith M, Kassianides C, Luyirika E, Wendy Spearman C. IHPBA White paper – The improvement of management pathways and access to care in sub-Saharan Africa for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. HPB (Oxford). 2025;27(5):585–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2025.02.007
  24. Jonas E, Smith M, Kassianides C, Luyirika E, Spearman CW. IHPBA legacy declaration – The improvement of management pathways and access to care in sub-Saharan Africa for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. HPB (Oxford). 2025;27(5):583–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2025.02.006
  25. Jonas E, Bernon M, Robertson B, et al. Treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma in sub-Saharan Africa: Challenges and solutions. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;7(11):1049–1060. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(22)00042-5
  26. Jonas E. Hepatocellular carcinoma in sub-Saharan Africa – The way forward. S Afr Med J. 2018;108(8b):12391.
  27. Ogbole GI, Adeyomoye AO, Badu-Peprah A, Mensah Y, Nzeh DA. Survey of magnetic resonance imaging availability in West Africa. Pan Afr Med J. 2018;30:240. https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2018.30.240.14000
  28. Kiguli-Malwadde E, Byanyima R, Kawooya MG, Mubuuke AG, Basiimwa RC, Pitcher R. An audit of registered radiology equipment resources in Uganda. Pan Afr Med J. 2020;37:295. https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2020.37.295.22046
  29. Ngoya PS, Muhogora WE, Pitcher RD. Defining the diagnostic divide: An analysis of registered radiological equipment resources in a low-income African country. Pan Afr Med J. 2016;25:99. https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2016.25.99.9736
  30. Anazodo UC, Ng JJ, Ehiogu B, et al. A framework for advancing sustainable magnetic resonance imaging access in Africa. NMR Biomed. 2023;36(3):e4846. https://doi.org/10.1002/nbm.4846
  31. Kawooya MG. Training for rural radiology and imaging in sub-saharan Africa: Addressing the mismatch between services and population. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2012;2:37. https://doi.org/10.4103/2156-7514.97747


Crossref Citations

No related citations found.