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 |