Skip to main content

Table 2 Toe gap fitting standards applied to footwear of people with diabetes

From: Toe gaps and their assessment in footwear for people with diabetes: a narrative review

Study, Year Type of Study Toe Gap (cm) Toe Gap Justification Fit Measurement Method
Min Max Measure Position Foot Footwear
Barwick, 2019a [20] Cohort study 1.0 2.0 IWGDF and Diabetic Foot Australia guidelines cited N/A
Chantelau, 2002b [21] Case-control 1.0 1.5 Gap used by German Shoe institute in children’s’ shoes (WMS standard 1990) now 0.9–1.5 cm STANDING WMS N/A
Chicharro-Luna, 2020 [22] Cohort study 1.0 1.5 Based on guidance within an article by Edelstein [32] STANDING BRANNOCK CEGI DEVICE
Fan, 2014 [23] Cohort study 1.3 Thumbnail’s length, half inch. Unattributed.
Isip, 2016 [24] Cohort study 1.0 2.0 IWGDF guidelines cited (43.6% wearing footwear of incorrect length based on 78 measured) STANDING BRANNOCK PLUS 12 MED
Litzelman, 1997 [25] Cohort study 1.9 Based on nurse-clinician’s thumb width of 3/4 in. STANDING THUMB
McInnes, 2012 [26] Case-control 1.0 1.5 Chantelau recommendations cited [21] STANDING BRANNOCK ISSG
Nancarrow, 1999 [27] Cohort study 1.0 Approx. 1 cm on weight bearing. Unattributed. STANDING SELF ASSESSMENT
Guideline Type of Study Min Max Toe Gap Justification Measure Position Foot Footwear
IWGDF, 2019 [28] N/A 1.0 2.0 Unattributed. STANDING
Diabetic Foot Australia, 2018 [33] N/A 1.0 2.0 Unattributed. STANDING BRANNOCK BRANNOCK
  1. % Incorrectly fitted: N/A Not assessed. – No data available
  2. Measurement Method: ISSG Internal Shoe Size Gauge, CEGI device Combined foot measurement device and plastic internal footwear length gauge
  3. a Barwick did not collect information on fit directly (rather through a survey) which is a limitation of the study
  4. b Chantelau evaluated foot anthropometrics in relation to available industrial footwear size