CHAMGAP
APPROVEDReviewed and approved by the Chamgap Editorial Team (2026-08-01). The draft was written by AI, the existence of all 1 cited sources was verified at the original page, and the verdict passed blind grading and adversarial audit. Methodology v0.6.
Verdict No. 1938 · Search date 2026-08-01 · Methodology v0.6

Custom foot orthoses,
does it really help with Improved plantar-fasciitis pain and function versus a sham insert?

30-Second Summary
D
Evidence Grade D · 30 · Safety acceptable
Pain did not significantly improve, and a small short-term function difference disappeared by 12 months
The device is generally low risk, but pressure pain, blistering, or discomfort warrants adjustment. Specialist review is prudent with diabetic sensory loss or skin injury.
What the
research shows
The grade is D. In Landorf's 135-person trial, custom versus sham pain at three months differed by 7.4 points (95% CI -1.4 to 16.2), P=0.10, and at 12 months pain was 2.3 (-5.6 to 10.1) and function 1.2 (-6.1 to 8.5). STAP randomized 185 and also found no custom-versus-sham difference, while usual care outperformed custom orthoses. Conflicting trials give D with 30 points.
What the
ads claim
Being individually molded does not establish superiority over sham or usual care. Verdict 1760 is D with 24 points for custom corrective insoles preventing low back pain during prolonged walking or training; that is a different indication from treating plantar fasciitis here.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • The custom device was semirigid plastic molded from an individual cast; the sham was thin soft foam.
  • Reported supply and fitting costs at the time were USD 225 to 300 for custom and USD 45 to 90 for prefabricated devices.
  • Verdict 1760 is D with 24 points for low-back-pain prevention during prolonged walking or training, and verdict 1439 is F with 12 points for lateral-wedge insoles in knee osteoarthritis; both indications differ.
Gap Measurement · Verdict 1938 · D 30
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

Landorf randomized 135 participants, sham 45, prefabricated 44, and custom 46; 131 had 12-month data. Three-month custom-versus-sham pain was 7.4 (-1.4 to 16.2), P=0.10, and function 7.5 (0.3 to 14.7), P=0.04; at 12 months pain was 2.3 (-5.6 to 10.1) and function 1.2 (-6.1 to 8.5). University and Australian Podiatry Education and Research Foundation funding was supplemented by manufacturer materials. STAP randomized 185, custom 70, sham 69, and usual care 46, and favored usual care over custom. Whittaker 2018 pooled 19 trials and 1,660 participants: pain versus sham at 7 to 12 weeks was SMD -0.27 (95% CI -0.48 to -0.06), moderate evidence, with no significant effect at 0 to 6 or 13 to 52 weeks.

02

Why this is classified as D (30)

Human trials exist, but pain failed, the small functional difference was not durable, and short-term confidence intervals leave some meaningful-benefit possibility, giving D with 30 points.

Counterpoint. Cheaper prefabricated devices performed similarly.

Rejudgment record. Cross-check applied — A 135-participant intention-to-treat sham-controlled trial failed on pain, found a function difference below 15 points, and found no pain or function benefit at 12 months

Scoring profile behind this grade
EndpointPPatient-reported treatment goal - the symptom is the goal
ReplicationR0Trials conflict in direction
IndependenceI2Decisive evidence is publicly or non-profit funded
Effect sizeE0Null
PrecisionC0The confidence interval leaves room for benefit

The scoring table and the verdict agree (D).

Sub-claim grades by effect

This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.

Effect (sub-claim)GradeBasis
Pain improvement at three monthsDThe difference was 7.4 points, P=0.10.
Function improvement at three monthsCThe 7.5-point difference was statistically positive but smaller than 15 points.
Pain and function improvement at 12 monthsDBoth outcomes were null.

Cross-check — Codex and Claude

This verdict was drafted by Codex through literature review and source-existence checks, cross-checked through blind grading and adversarial audit, and settled by reapplying the methodology boundary rules. Cases with split grades were resolved through rejudgment.
03

Evidence Table

StudyDesignSampleFundingEndpointResultWeight
Study 1Participant-blinded three-arm randomized sham-controlled intention-to-treat trial131Australian Podiatry Education and Research Foundation and University of Western Sydney; company material donationsFHSQ pain and function at three and 12 monthsCustom versus sham at three months: pain 7.4 (-1.4 to 16.2), P=0.10; function 7.5 (0.3 to 14.7), P=0.04. Both null at 12 monthsPivotal long-term sham-controlled trial
§

Receipt — 1 References

All 1 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-08-01).

Landorf KB, Keenan AM, Herbert RD. Effectiveness of foot orthoses to treat plantar fasciitis: a randomized trial. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(12):1305-1310. PMID: 16801514. DOI: 10.1001/archinte.166.12.1305.
checked
Draft and rewrite: Codex (AI) · Verification: Codex blind grading and adversarial audit · Final adjudication: Claude
Reviewed and approved: Chamgap Editorial Team · Approval date: 2026-08-01 · Corrections: none

Cite this verdict

Custom foot orthoses x pain and function in plantar fasciitis Evidence Grade D card
[Chamgap] Custom foot orthoses x pain and function in plantar fasciitis — Evidence Grade D·30. 1 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/joint-bone/custom-foot-orthoses-plantar-fasciitis-pain-function/ · CC BY 4.0

CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.

!

What this document does and does not do

Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.