Background: To compare the use of a personal device such as an Apple iPhone 4 against formal clinical photography in monitoring skin lesions.

Methods: Clinical photography was used to photograph 10 skin lesions and these images were compared to photographs taken by an iPhone. These images were then reviewed by 5 different dermatologists to determine whether a discernible difference in image quality was apparent, and if sufficient detail was present to use the images taken from the iPhone in the clinical setting.

Results: All 5 dermatologists correctly identified all 10 skin lesions taken by clinical photography and those which were taken by the iPhone.  Forty seven of the 50 dermatologist responses indicated both photographs provided enough detail to be clinically useful, although only 9 of the 50 responses indicated the same detail was seen in both images.

Conclusion: Although the quality of images produced using clinical photography is superior to those produced by the iPhone, pictures taken by an iPhone may provide sufficient detail for clinical assessment of skin lesions.

Background: Mobile technology advancements have bought many benefits to professionals across all industries, particularly an increase in productivity. There is a paucity of information regarding the use of smartphone applications in medical research, particularly within the laboratory has not been examined.

Method: We performed a qualitative study on the use of smartphones in the laboratory. Medical researchers were surveyed regarding use of their smartphones in the laboratory, as well as the use of apps, or “applications”. We also performed analysis on available applications and current standing of smartphone integration with laboratory equipment.

Results: Survey responses indicated researchers to be more productive as a result of owning smartphones, however most did not utilise applications, and none utilised field-specific applications in the laboratory. Several issues preventing researchers from using their smartphones and applications in the laboratory were identified. These included occupational health and safety reasons, security, potential for distraction, absence of wireless connectivity, and a lack of awareness. Analysis of iPhone applications demonstrated availability of a range of reference and functional applications performing essential laboratory tasks.

Conclusion: This study demonstrates that smartphones are currently not used to their full potential within the laboratory, and there are hurdles to overcome before wider use in the field of medical research. However as time and technology progresses further, and with increasing integration of smartphone technology with current laboratory equipment, researchers will embrace the smartphone as a cost-effective and timesaving device.