Background A simplification of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) version 2018 (v2018), revised LI-RADS (rLI-RADS), has been proposed for imaging-based diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Single-site data suggest that rLI-RADS category 5 (rLR-5) improves sensitivity while maintaining positive predictive value (PPV) of the LI-RADS v2018 category 5 (LR-5), which indicates definite HCC. Purpose To compare the diagnostic performance of LI-RADS v2018 and rLI-RADS in a multicenter data set of patients at risk for HCC by performing an individual patient data meta-analysis. Materials and Methods Multiple databases were searched for studies published from January 2014 to January 2022 that evaluated the diagnostic performance of any version of LI-RADS at CT or MRI for diagnosing HCC. An individual patient data meta-analysis method was applied to observations from the identified studies. Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2 was applied to determine study risk of bias. Observations were categorized according to major features and either LI-RADS v2018 or rLI-RADS assignments. Diagnostic accuracies of category 5 for each system were calculated using generalized linear mixed models and compared using the likelihood ratio test for sensitivity and the Wald test for PPV. Results Twenty-four studies, including 3840 patients and 4727 observations, were analyzed. The median observation size was 19 mm (IQR, 11-30 mm). rLR-5 showed higher sensitivity compared with LR-5 (70.6% [95% CI: 60.7, 78.9] vs 61.3% [95% CI: 45.9, 74.7]; P < .001), with similar PPV (90.7% vs 92.3%; P = .55). In studies with low risk of bias (n = 4; 1031 observations), rLR-5 also achieved a higher sensitivity than LR-5 (72.3% [95% CI: 63.9, 80.1] vs 66.9% [95% CI: 58.2, 74.5]; P = .02), with similar PPV (83.1% vs 88.7%; P = .47). Conclusion rLR-5 achieved a higher sensitivity for identifying HCC than LR-5 while maintaining a comparable PPV at 90% or more, matching the results presented in the original rLI-RADS study. © RSNA, 2023 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Sirlin and Chernyak in this issue.