ArticlePloS one2026
Current practice in prescribing footwear and insoles to reduce the risk of neuropathic plantar forefoot ulceration and re-ulceration in people with diabetes.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFootwear and insoles are frequently used to offload the neuropathic diabetic foot at risk of ulceration and re-ulceration. This study aims to explore the prescription habits of Australian pedorthists and the variations in footwear and insole design due to variations in foot pathology, comorbidities and patient-specific factors consideration.
methodsAn online survey link was sent to Australian pedorthists (n = 42), who were asked to answer questions relating to four hypothetical cases exploring current footwear and insole prescribing habits. Qualtrics research and data analysis software was used for the online survey and data analysis tool.
resultsCustom-made footwear was commonly prescribed in more complex cases, with recommendations ranging from 47% to 80% across scenarios (e.g., 80% in Case-4). In simpler cases, prefabricated medical-grade footwear with modifications was more frequently recommended (e.g., 53% in Case-1). Custom-made insoles were recommended by 84% to 100% of participants across all cases. Variations in prescriptions were largely influenced by differences in pathology, comorbidities, and individual patient preferences. Common barriers to patient adherence included concerns about appearance, bulkiness, and difficulty putting on or removing the footwear. To address these, pedorthists employed strategies such as involving family members in design choices, offering dual-purpose footwear (e.g., for indoor and outdoor use), incorporating culturally or gender-sensitive designs, and using in-shoe pressure mapping to demonstrate clinical benefits. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionAustralian pedorthists follow national and international guidelines for footwear and insole prescriptions with some variations when they encounter patient-specific factors such as preferences and lifestyle. The majority of them follow the best practices when evaluating the efficacy of the recommended devices, such as in-shoe pressure mapping systems. They also employ various practical techniques to increase adherence towards improved patient outcomes by engaging family or partners and through motivational interviews and interdisciplinary team approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.