Pitfalls in photographing radiological images from computer screens
Authors: Jarrel Seah, Andrew D Nichols, Philip M Lewis and Jeffrey V Rosenfeld
Published online: 15 February 2016
Using mobile phones to acquire images in clinical practice enables rapid, collaborative decision making1 and is increasingly common. However, the practice is not completely foolproof, as a recent “near miss” at our institution demonstrates.
A 45-year-old woman presented with spontaneous subarachnoid haemorrhage secondary to a ruptured anterior communicating artery aneurysm. The anterior communicating artery aneurysm and an unruptured left middle cerebral artery aneurysm were clipped via craniotomy and a ventricular drain was inserted. Serial post-operative computed tomography (CT) brain scans showed an evolving infarction in the left middle cerebral artery territory, presumed to be secondary to temporary clipping at surgery, which became fully established after 28 hours. All cerebral vessels were patent, visualised on a post-operative CT angiogram. Elevated intracranial pressure (> 40 mmHg) and neurological fluctuation prompted a repeat CT scan, a photograph of which was taken from a computer screen using a mobile phone (Box, A). This image was sent by the intensive care unit consultant to the mobile phone of the on-call neurosurgeon, who noted apparent extensive bifrontal infarction. The patient was urgently transported to the operating room for decompressive craniectomy; however, on reviewing the scans at a radiology workstation before surgery (Box, B), the neurosurgeon noted the discrepancy and the procedure was cancelled. The patient recovered well and was neurologically intact and independent 6 months after discharge.
Although others report success using mobile phones to photograph CT brain scans displayed on computer monitors,2 our case highlights the need for doctors to appreciate the limitations of display technology. For example, many computer monitors exhibit viewing angle-dependent reductions in luminance and contrast ratio,3 which render images susceptible to artefact, particularly when viewed at close range.4 Moreover, mobile phone screens do not meet the technical requirements of a medical imaging display device.5
We confirmed that viewing angle-dependent reductions in luminance were responsible for the spurious frontal lobe darkening evident in the mobile phone image. Clearly, spatial variations in image brightness can dramatically affect image interpretation, with potentially disastrous results.
Guidelines on mobile device photography in the health care setting address privacy concerns but not technical aspects.1 Therefore, we offer some suggestions on preventing similar cases from occurring:
Use original images wherever possible.
Compare the photo with the original before sending.
When photographing computer screens, position the camera perpendicularly to, and at arm’s length from the screen, enlarging the image with digital zoom as required.
Before making clinical decisions, review the original imaging, including confirming the correct patient details with an observer or peer.
After photographing, ensure that images are deleted from the phone and any online data storage accounts, and record in writing the image use in the case notes.
Teach undergraduates as well as practising clinicians the technical aspects of the use of mobile phone images.
We hope this case serves to remind doctors of the need for caution when reviewing photographs of digital images, and that our suggestions will be helpful in preventing similar situations from occurring.
Box – Mobile phone photograph of the cranial computed tomography (CT) scan compared with the original image

A: Photograph of axial CT image sent via a mobile phone, showing apparent hypodense frontal lobes suggestive of infarction (black arrows). Note however the anterior horns of the lateral ventricles are not distorted or effaced, as would be expected with such an extensive infarct (large white arrow). A ventricular catheter is located in the right lateral ventricle (small white arrow). B: The original axial CT image showing only a wedge-shaped, left middle cerebral artery infarct (white arrows).
Competing interests
References
- Australian Medical Association. Clinical images and the use of personal mobile devices: a guide for medical students and doctors. 2015. https://ama.com.au/article/clinical-images-and-use-personal-mobile-devices (accessed Aug 2015).
- Bullard TB, Rosenberg MS, Ladde J, et al. Digital images taken with a mobile phone can assist in the triage of neurosurgical patients to a level 1 trauma centre. J Telemed Telecare 2013; 19: 80-83.
- Badano A, Flynn MJ, Martin S, Kanicki J. Angular dependence of the luminance and contrast in medical monochrome liquid crystal displays. Med Phys 2003; 30: 2602-2613.
- Ghodrati M, Morris AP, Price NS. The (un)suitability of modern liquid crystal displays (LCDs) for vision research. Front Psychol 2015; 6: 303.
- Yamazaki A, Liu P, Cheng WC, Badano A. Image quality characteristics of handheld display devices for medical imaging. PLoS One 2013; 8: e79243.
Linked content
-
MJA InSight: Pitfalls of smartphone images in diagnosis
Motor Neuron Disease Mortality Trends in Australia From 1986 to 2023: A Population-Based Study
Carol M. Y. Lee, Rupendra N. Shrestha, Julian Gold, Mark Stevenson, Kelly L. Williams, Lyndal Henden, Sandrine K. K. Chan Moi Fat, Zoe Zussa, Amanda Wright, Martin Jude, Mark A. S. Laidlaw, Willem J. R. Fokkink, Dominic B. Rowe
Mild traumatic brain injury and concussion and persisting post‐concussion symptoms: new guidelines to support evidence‐based assessment and management in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand
Karen M Barlow, Jennie L Ponsford, Alice Theodom, Gill Cowen, Gavin A Davis, Vicki Anderson, Franz E Babl, David Cole, Jennifer Cullen, Stuart R Dalziel, Melinda Fitzgerald, Howard Flavell, Caroline Yates, Rebecca Kimble, John H Olver, Rhonda Orr, Mark Ralfe, Michael Rose, Nick Rushworth, Julia Treleaven, Gary Browne, Nathan Delang, Sarah Harris, Gary Mitchell, Sean Tweedy
The prevalence of and variation in indicators of the quality and safety of long term aged care in Australia, 2019: a cross‐sectional population‐based study
Tesfahun C Eshetie, Gillian E Caughey, Catherine Lang, Olivia Ryan, Renuka Visvanathan, Craig Whitehead, Keith Evans, Janet K Sluggett, Jyoti Khadka, Carolyn Dawkins, Helena Williams, Miranda Starke, Sara Blunt, Anne Liddell, Megan Corlis, Anna Sheppeard, Penelope Lello, Marilyn Thien, Steven L Wesselingh, Maria C Inacio
Health and economic benefits of improving pre‐hospital identification of stroke in Australian women: a modelling study
Thomas Gadsden, Lei Si, Emily R Atkins, Cheryl Carcel, Xia Wang, Stephen Jan, Mark Woodward, Laura E Downey
Symptom burden, quality of life, and diagnostic journey of people with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, Australia, 2021–24: a descriptive patient registry data study
Marie‐Claire Seeley, Gemma Wilson, Eric Ong, Amy Langdon, Jonathan Chieng, Danielle Bailey, Kristina Comacchio, Amanda Page, Dennis H Lau, Celine Gallagher
The intersection of rurality and dementia prevalence in Australia for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non‐Indigenous peoples
Antonia J Clarke, Marwan Ahmed, Judith M Katzenellenbogen, John Towney (Wiradjuri), Anna H Balabanski, Adrienne Withall (Dharawal Yuin), Kylie Radford, Amy Brodtmann