Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Footwear characteristics in people with inflammatory arthritis in Singapore

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research20169:29

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13047-016-0161-6

Received: 31 May 2016

Accepted: 3 August 2016

Published: 17 August 2016

Abstract

Background

Foot problems are common in people with inflammatory arthritis. Despite suitable footwear having the potential to alleviate pain, improve mobility and maintain independence, previous studies have found many people with inflammatory arthritis wearing poorly fitting and inappropriate footwear. Footwear styles and characteristics have not been reported in a Singapore inflammatory arthritis population. The objective of this study was to identify current footwear styles and characteristics of footwear worn by people with inflammatory arthritis in Singapore.

Methods

One-hundred-and-one participants with inflammatory arthritis were recruited from the rheumatology outpatient clinic of a large public hospital in Singapore. Disease and clinical characteristics were recorded. A patient-reported outcome included current foot pain. An objective footwear assessment of style, age of shoe, fit and construction was conducted.

Results

The majority of participants were Chinese women with a mean (SD) age was 52.0 (15.0) years old and a mean (SD) disease duration of 9.3 (0.3) years. We found 50 % of participants (n = 51) reported footwear problems. Sandals (n = 27, 26 %), flip-flops (n = 19, 19 %) and moccasin type (n = 19, 19 %) was the most common footwear choice. Evaluation of footwear characteristics found that there was a lack of motion control features. Only 32 (32 %) participants had correctly fitting footwear with regard to length, width and depth. No participant was wearing therapeutic footwear.

Conclusion

This study provides the first insight into footwear preferences of people with inflammatory arthritis in Singapore. Use of slip-on and poorly fitting footwear was found to be common in people with inflammatory arthritis. Further research on footwear preferences in Southeast-Asian communities needs to take into account cultural habit and preference, socio-economic status, footwear options and affordability.

Keywords

Inflammatory arthritis Footwear Foot pain

Background

Foot problems are common in people with inflammatory arthritis (IA) that includes rheumatoid arthritis (RA) [1], gout [2], psoriatic arthritis [3], systemic lupus erythematous [4] and spondyloarthritis [5]. Over 75 % of people with RA report foot involvement within 4 years of diagnosis, and the reported prevalence of foot problems are between 50 and 90 % [6]. People with IA-related structural foot changes experience difficulty finding appropriate shoes due to their foot deformities [7, 8].

Previous studies have reported that non-pharmacological management goals for people with IA include pain management and preservation of foot function using safe and cost-effective treatments, such as palliative foot care, prescribed foot orthoses and specialist footwear [914]. Footwear therapy is an effective intervention in IA [15, 16]. However, difficulties in finding appropriate footwear have been identified as a major barrier contributing to poor adherence to management [1, 16, 17].

Seasonal climate variation has been reported to influence footwear choice in people with IA in other countries such as the UK [18] and New Zealand [7]. Singapore’s equatorial climate is much less variable and footwear studies conducted in cooler-climate countries may not be representative of footwear choices and styles worn in a Southeast-Asian population. The majority of studies also refer specifically to RA with fewer studies expanding their investigation to include other IA conditions. The objective of this study was to identify current footwear styles and characteristics of footwear worn by people with IA in Singapore.

Methods

Participants were recruited from a rheumatology outpatient clinic in Singapore between January 2015 and November 2015. Participants were eligible if they were 21 years old or older and had physician-diagnosed inflammatory joint disease, with or without current reported foot pain. Those with cognitive impairment precluding ability to answer health-related questions accurately were excluded. Ethics approval was obtained from the National Healthcare Group Domain Specific Review Board Singapore. A target sample size of 100 participants was predetermined based on a previous footwear study [19]. One podiatrist with clinical experience of 14 years conducted all the measurements.

Clinical characteristics included the type of IA, disease duration, current medications, erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP). The Disease Activity Score in 28-joints using the ESR (DAS28-ESR) was calculated for those people with RA and a same-day ESR result [20]. Responses to the Modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (MHAQ) - a physical function status questionnaire used in the evaluation of a variety of rheumatic diseases - were also recorded [21]. The MHAQ assesses the degree of difficulty experienced with undertaking specific tasks over the preceding week. MHAQ scores are converted to a range between 0 and 3, with 0 indicating no functional impairment and 3 indicating complete impairment [22]. All demographic and disease activity data were presented as means and standard deviations (SD), and foot assessments as numbers and percentages.

A 100 mm Visual analogue scale (VAS) assessed the severity of current foot pain. Participants were asked if they had experienced problems with their current footwear and to rate the comfort and suitability of their current footwear on a Likert Scale 0 to 5, with 0 being not at all comfortable and suitable and 5 being extremely comfortable and suitable. An objective footwear assessment of style, age of shoe, fit and construction was undertaken using the Footwear Assessment Form [23].

The assessment of shoe construction included: heel height, type of fixation, heel counter stiffness, midsole sagittal rigidity, presence of cushioning and wear patterns [23]. Categories for increased heel height were 0 to 2.5 cm, 2.6 to 5.0 cm, or >5.0 cm, with measurements recorded as the average of the height medially and laterally from the base of the heel to the centre of the heel-sole interface [23]. Types of fixation were categorized as none, laces, straps/buckles and Velcro. Heel counter stiffness was categorized as none, minimal (>45°), moderate (<45°), or rigid (<10°). To measure this, the heel counter was pressed with firm force approximately 20 mm from its base and the angular displacement estimated. Midfoot sole sagittal stability was categorized as minimal (>45°), moderate (<45°), or rigid (<10°). Presence of cushioning was categorized as nil, heel and heel/forefoot. Tread pattern was divided into three items consisting of textured, partially worn or smooth [23].

We evaluated the relationship between current foot pain and footwear style (open and closed ended footwear) and age of footwear using Kendall’s tau correlation. Demographic and clinical characteristics were described as mean (SD) for continuous data and frequency (%) for categorical data. Data were analyzed using SPSS v 20.0 for Windows.

Results

The demographic and clinical characteristics are shown in Table 1. We recruited 101 participants with IA, the majority being Chinese women, with a mean (SD) of 52.0 (14.5) years old and a mean (SD) disease duration of 9.3 (0.3) years. The most commonly reported IA conditions were RA (46 %), gout (31 %) and spondyloarthritis (15 %). The MHAQ found mild overall functional impairment with a mean (SD) score of 0.25 (0.36).
Table 1

Clinical characteristics (n = 101). Data presented as mean (SD) unless specified

Age, years

52.0 (14.5)

Women, n (%)

51 (50 %)

Ethnicity, n (%)

 Chinese

70 (69 %)

 Malay

11 (11 %)

 Indian

15 (15 %)

 Caucasian

0 (0 %)

 Other

5 (5 %)

Body Mass Index, Kg/m2

27.2 (5.4)

Smokers, n (%)

14 (14 %)

Disease duration, years

9.3 (0.3)

Disease type, n (%)

• Rheumatoid arthritis

46 (46 %)

• Gout

31 (31 %)

• Spondyloarthritis

15 (15 %)

• Psoriatic arthritis

4 (4 %)

• Undifferentiated inflammatory arthritis

5 (5 %)

Diabetes Mellitus, n (%)

12 (12 %)

Patient global VAS (VAS 0–100), mm

26 (26)

Tender (28) joint count

1.8 (2.8)

Swollen (28) joint count

1.3 (2.1)

DAS28-ESR score *RA participants only

3.65 (1.1)

ESR, mm/h

31.6 (21.2)

CRP, mg/L

27.4 (32.2)

mHAQ score

0.25 (0.36)

VAS visual analogue scale, ESR Erythrocyte sedimentation rate, CRP C-reactive protein, DAS-28 disease activity score in 28 joints

The foot pain and footwear problem data are shown in Table 2. Nearly 50 % of participants (n = 48) reported current foot pain, of which 45 participants (94 %) reported daily foot pain. The mean (SD) score on the 100 mm VAS for current foot pain was 50 mm (23.0 mm). Over 50 % of participants (n = 51) reported problems with footwear, although 74 participants (73 %) reported their footwear to be highly suitable and comfortable.
Table 2

Foot pain and problems with footwear

Current foot pain VAS (VAS 0–100), mm (SD)

50 (23.0)

Daily current foot pain, n (%)

45 (95 %)

Problems with footwear, n (%)

51 (50 %)

Footwear suits needs, n (%)

 1 – not at all

7 (7 %)

 2

4 (4 %)

 3

16 (16 %)

 4

32 (32 %)

 5 – extremely

42 (41 %)

Footwear comfortable, n (%)

 1 – not at all

6 (6 %)

 2

6 (6 %)

 3

15 (15 %)

 4

36 (36 %)

 5 – extremely

38 (37 %)

Footwear characteristics (Table 3) and footwear construction are shown in Table 4. The most common types of shoes worn were: sandals (n = 27, 26 %), flip-flops (n = 19, 19 %) and moccasins (n = 19, 19 %). The majority (n = 63, 62 %) of participants wore slip-on shoes on the day of assessment. Only 32 (32 %) participants had correctly fitting footwear with regard to length, width and depth. Optimal mid-sole sagittal stability was found in 45 % of shoes (n = 45). The majority of participants wore shoes with a flat or low heel height (n = 53, 52 %) and shoes with cushioning (n = 67, 66 %). The majority of participants shoes were 12 months and older (n = 60, 59 %). No participants had been issued with therapeutic or surgical footwear. We found no correlation between current foot pain and footwear age (r = −0.06, p = 0.54) and style of footwear (r = 0.098, p = 0.328).
Table 3

Footwear type and fit

Footwear type worn to study visit, n (%)

 Oxford

1 (1 %)

 Sandal

27 (26 %)

 Mule

13 (13 %)

 Flip-flops

19 (19 %)

 Walking shoe

13 (13 %)

 Athletic shoe

7 (7 %)

 Moccasin

19 (19 %)

 High heel

1 (1 %)

 Boot

1 (1 %)

Footwear fit, n (%)

 Length

  Good

36 (36 %)

  Too long

3 (3 %)

  Too short

62 (61 %)

 Width

  Good

61 (60 %)

  Too wide

1 (1 %)

  Too narrow

39 (39 %)

 Depth

  Good

70 (69 %)

  Too deep

0 (0 %)

  Too shallow

31 (31 %)

  Total number of shoes with good length, width and depth, n (%)

32 (32 %)

Table 4

Footwear construction

Heel height, n (%)

 0.0 – 2.5 cm

53 (52 %)

 2.6 – 5.0 cm

44 (44 %)

  > 5.0 cm

4 (4 %)

Fixation, n (%)

 None

63 (62 %)

 Velcro

12 (12 %)

 Laces

19 (19 %)

 Straps or buckles

6 (6 %)

 Zip

1 (1 %)

Heel counter stiffness, n (%)

 None

52 (51 %)

 Minimal (>45°)

29 (29 %)

 Moderate (<45°)

15 (15 %)

 Rigid (0–10°)

5 (5 %)

Midsole sagittal stability, n (%)

 Minimal (>45°)

56 (55 %)

 Moderate (<45°)

41 (41 %)

 Rigid (0–10°)

4 (4 %)

Presence of cushioning, n (%)

 None

34 (34 %)

 Heel

3 (3 %)

 Heel/forefoot

64 (63 %)

Tread wear, n (%)

 Not worn

11 (11 %)

 Partly worn

69 (68 %)

 Fully worn

21 (20 %)

Age of shoe, n (%)

 0 – 6 months

17 (17 %)

 6 – 12 months

24 (24 %)

  > 1 year old

60 (59 %)

Discussion

This study provides the first insight into the footwear preferences of people with IA in Singapore. Slip-on footwear of the sandal, flip-flop and moccasin type was the most common footwear choice. This is comparable to previous studies [7, 25, 26] and it has been suggested that sandals may better accommodate forefoot deformity [7]. Studies conducted in the UK [18], Australia [17] and New Zealand [7, 24] acknowledged that higher temperatures and humidity could play a key role in influencing footwear habits. Brenton-Rule et al. [7] state the popularity of sandals is due to feet getting hot in closed-in footwear. A possible explanation for the high use of sandals is the higher temperatures, high humidity and abundant annual rainfall in Singapore.

We found slip-on footwear to be commonly used (62 %, n = 63). The findings of slip-on footwear contrast with previous studies reporting that slip-on shoes were worn by 24 % (n = 12) of people with gout [25] and 45 % (n = 36) of people with RA [24]. It is customary in Asian cultures to remove shoes before entering a home and this is commonly practiced in Singapore. Shoes are also taken off before entering a mosque or temple. Hand deformities or other global physical function difficulties may also account for the high incidence of slip-on footwear worn in this study, though the MHAQ found mild overall functional impairment. Traditional Indian and Malay dress styles for women, also common in Singapore, include the use of traditional ethnic slip-on shoe styles.

The majority of shoes worn by participants in this study were poorly fitting and worn for more than 12 months. The wearing of poorly fitting shoes has been linked to foot pain in people with RA [1, 10, 24] and gout [25]. We found current footwear was also objectively poor due to the lack of motion control features (fixation of the upper to the foot, heel counter stiffness and midsole stability). This finding may suggest that participants prioritize other footwear characteristics. Previous studies show that adequate motion control and cushioning are important shoe features in the management of foot problems in people with RA [10, 23, 26] and gout [27].

Although participants in this study were wearing footwear with insufficient intrinsic structure to promote optimal support and stability, they considered their retail shoes to be both comfortable and suitable for their needs. This is consistent with previous studies [24, 28] that have noted the contradiction between the footwear features considered important for this patient group and the footwear features they select.

We observed the majority of IA people had experienced problems with footwear, consistent with previous studies [7, 8, 18, 24]. Previous studies have reported limited footwear choice for people with IA-related foot problems [7, 18, 29] and that footwear difficulties can be the source of considerable distress [16].

No participant in this study was wearing therapeutic footwear. This contrasted with previous studies [7, 24], which found that 5–18 % of participants with IA had been prescribed and were wearing therapeutic footwear. Research has highlighted the benefits of prescribed footwear [8, 3032]. Two key contextual challenges are cost of healthcare and availability of specialist footwear in Singapore. The public healthcare in Singapore uses a system of compulsory savings from payroll deductions to provide healthcare subsides. Out-of-pocket payment at the point of care can vary considerably for each service and level of subsidy. Therefore, cost to the patient plays a major role in health care decisions, and is a potential barrier to uptake of podiatry services and purchasing of specialist footwear.

Limitations of this study are lack of external validity as participants were recruited from one tertiary Hospital in Singapore. The convenience sample of people attending the outpatient clinic may have resulted in selection bias. The study may also suffer from recall bias affecting the self-reporting of disease duration. There was no independent assessor, which may have affected reporting of problems and perception of current footwear to the podiatrist during data collection. We did not investigate the participant’s prior use of therapeutic footwear; we assessed only the current footwear worn on the day of the study. There are known factors relating to poor use of therapeutic footwear, such as poor fit or unacceptable cosmesis [1, 16]. The dissatisfaction with the appearance of footwear and its impact on restricting choice in clothes could be a contributing factor in this study, and that open-type slip-on footwear is commonly worn in Singapore. Future work may include participant’s perceptions, views and experiences impacting on footwear selection. Religion, cultural idiosyncrasies and community identity are factors that should be considered in future studies investigating footwear preferences in Southeast-Asian populations.

Conclusion

The current findings found the use of slip-on and poorly fitting footwear to be common in people with IA in Singapore. Singapore has a climate of uniform higher temperatures and humidity, and a diverse Southeast-Asian culture of Chinese, Malay, Indian and Western influences. This mix of traditions, local customs, culture and climate may influence choice of footwear. Further research on footwear preferences in Southeast-Asian communities needs to take into account cultural habit and preference, socio-economic status, footwear options and affordability.

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

KR and KC conceived and designed the study. AS, PC and ML recruited participants. KC collected and inputted the data. KR conducted the statistical analysis. KR and KC compiled the data and drafted the manuscript with input from AS, PC and ML. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Podiatry Department, Rehabilitation Centre, National University Health System
(2)
Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore
(3)
Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, National University Health System
(4)
Health and Rehabilitation Research Institute, Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, AUT University

References

  1. Otter SJ, Lucas K, Springett K, Moore A, Davies K, Cheek L, Young A, Walker-Bone K. Foot pain in rheumatoid arthritis prevalence, risk factors and management: an epidemiological study. Clin Rheumatol. 2010;29:255–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Rome K, Survepalli D, Sanders A, Lobo M, McQueen FM, McNair P, Dalbeth N. Functional and biomechanical characteristics of foot disease in chronic gout: a case–control study. Clin Biomech. 2011;26:90–4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Hyslop E, McInnes I, Woodburn J, Turner D. Foot problems in psoriatic arthritis: high burden and low care provision. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69:928.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Cherry L, Blake A, Alcacer-Pitarch B, Edwards CJ, Hopkinson N, Teh LS, et al. Results of a national foot health survey of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Rheumatology. 2016;55:i110.Google Scholar
  5. Frizziero A, Bonsangue V, Trevisan M, Ames PRJ, Masiero S. Foot tendinopathies in rheumatic diseases: etiopathogenesis, clinical manifestations and therapeutic options. Clin Rheumatol. 2013;32:547–55.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Grondal L, Tengstrand B, Nordmark B, Wretenberg P, Stark A. The foot: still the most important reason for walking incapacity in rheumatoid arthritis: distribution of symptomatic joints in 1,000 RA patients. Acta Orthop. 2008;79:257–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Brenton-Rule A, Hendry G, Barr G, Rome K. An evaluation of seasonal variations in footwear worn by adults with inflammatory arthritis: a cross sectional observational study using a web-based survey. J Foot Ankle Res. 2014;7:36.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Williams AE, Nester CJ, Ravey MI. A qualitative investigation of rheumatoid arthritis patients’ experiences of therapeutic footwear. BMC Musculoskelet Dis. 2007;8:10.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Woodburn J, Hennessy K, Steultjens MP, McInnes IB, Turner DE. Commentary looking through the ‘window of opportunity’: is there a new paradigm of podiatry care on the horizon in early rheumatoid arthritis? J Foot Ankle Res. 2010;3:8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Williams AE, Rome K, Nester CJ. A clinical trial of specialist footwear for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology. 2007;46:302–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Woodburn J, Barker S, Helliwell PS. A randomized controlled trial of foot orthoses in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2002;29:1377–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Helliwell P. Lessons to be learned: review of a multidisciplinary foot clinic in rheumatology. Rheumatology. 2003;42:1426–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Korda J, Balint GP. When to consult the Podiatrist. Best Pract Res Clinic Rheum. 2004;18:587–611.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Woodburn J, Helliwell P. Foot problems in rheumatology. Rheumatology. 1997;36:932–3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guideline 79, Rheumatoid arthritis: the management of rheumatoid arthritis in adults. 2009 http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg79. Accessed 15 Dec 2015.
  16. Williams AE, Nester CJ, Ravey MI. Rheumatoid arthritis patients’ experiences of wearing therapeutic footwear - a qualitative investigation. BMC Musculoskelet Dis. 2007;8:104.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Hendry G, Gibson K, Pile K, Taylor L, Du Toit V, Burns J, Rome K. ‘They just scraped off the calluses’: a mixed methods exploration of foot care access and provision for people with rheumatoid arthritis in South-Western Sydney, Australia. J Foot Ankle Res. 2013;6:34.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Naidoo S, Anderson S, Mills J, Parsons S, Breeden S, Bevan E, Edwards C, Otter S. “I could cry, the amount of shoes I can’t get into”: a qualitative exploration of the factors that influence retail footwear selection in women with rheumatoid arthritis. J Foot Ankle Res. 2011;4:21.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Rome K, Gow PJ, Dalbeth N, Chapman JM. Clinical audit of foot problems in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated at Counties Manukau District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand. J Foot Ankle Res. 2009;2:16.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Prevoo M, van’ t Hof MA, Kuper HH, van Leeuwen MA, van de Putte LBA, van Riel P. Modified disease activity scores that include twenty-eight-joint counts. Development and validation in a prospective longitudinal study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1995;38:44–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Pincus T, Summey JA, Soraci Jr SA, Wallston KA, Hummon NP. Assessment of patient satisfaction in activities of daily living using a modified Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire. Arthritis Rheum. 1983;26:1346–53.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Anderson J, Sayles H, Curtis J, Wolfe F, Michaud K. Converting modified health assessment questionnaire (HAQ), multidimensional HAQ and HAQII scores into original HAQ scores using models developed with a large cohort of rheumatoid arthritis patients. Arthritis Care Res. 2010;62:1481–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Barton CJ, Bonanno D, Menz HB. Development and evaluation of a tool for the assessment of footwear characteristics. J Foot Ankle Res. 2009;2:10.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Silvester R, Williams AE, Dalbeth N, Rome K. ‘Choosing shoes’: a preliminary study into the challenges facing clinicians in assessing footwear for rheumatoid patients. J Foot Ankle Res. 2010;3:24.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Rome K, Frecklington M, McNair P, Gow P, Dalbeth N. Footwear characteristics and factors influencing footwear choice in patients with gout. Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63:1599–604.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Dahmen R, RBuijsmann S, Siemonsma P, Boers M, Lankhorst G, Roorda L. Use and effects of custom-made therapeutic footwear on lower-extremity related pain and activity limitations in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a prospective observational study of a cohort. J Rehabil Med. 2014;46(6):561–7. doi:https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-1807.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Rome K, Stewart S, Vandal AC, Gow P, McNair P, Dalbeth N. The effects of commercially available footwear on foot pain and disability in people with gout: A pilot study. BMC Musculoskelet Dis. 2013;14:278. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-14-278.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Vass C, Edwards C, Smith A, Sahota O, Drummond A. What do patients wear on their feet? A service evaluation of footwear in elderly patients. Int J Ther Rehab. 2015;22:21–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Williams AE, Nester CJ, Ravey MI, Kottink A, Klapsing MG. Women’s experiences of wearing therapeutic footwear in three European countries. J Foot Ankle Res. 2010;3:23.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Egan M, Brosseau L, Farmer M, Ouimet MA, Rees S, Tugwell P et al. Splints and orthoses in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003; doi:10.1002/14651858. CD004018.Google Scholar
  31. Moncur C, Ward JR. Heat-moldable shoes for management of forefoot problems in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 1990;3:222–6.Google Scholar
  32. Fransen M, Edmonds J. Off the shelf orthopaedic footwear for people with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 1997;10:250–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2016

Advertisement