CHAMGAP
APPROVEDReviewed and approved by the Chamgap Editorial Team (2026-08-05). 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. 2286 · Search date 2026-08-05 · Methodology v0.6

Long-term high-heel use,
does it really help with Increased midfoot pain?

30-Second Summary
C
Evidence Grade C · 52 · Safety caution
Radiographic deformity was not found, while selected foot pain showed a small association
Midfoot and lesser-toe pain and callosities were more common among long-term high-heel wearers. Persistent pain or altered walking warrants reduced wear and clinical assessment.
What the
research shows
The grade is C with 52 points. A one-time retrospective comparison assessed 95 women with prior workplace high-heel exposure and 102 workplace nonusers. Midfoot pain was 42% versus 28%, corresponding to a risk difference of about 14 percentage points, a relative risk of about 1.50, and an odds ratio of about 1.86. Radiographic findings and overall foot scores did not differ, and this cross-sectional assessment cannot establish causation.
What the
ads claim
The central event in this verdict is midfoot pain. Radiographic hallux-valgus and joint findings and overall foot scores did not differ significantly.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • Exposure required workplace heels at least 5 cm high for at least five years.
  • Controls reported never wearing high heels at work.
  • Hours per week were not reported; leisure-wear days in the prior week were collected.
  • Median workplace exposure in the exposed group was 20 years.
Gap Measurement · Verdict 2286 · C 52
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

Borchgrevink and colleagues conducted a one-time retrospective exposure-group comparison and cross-sectional assessment of 197 women aged 40 to 66. The 95 exposed women had regularly worn heels at least 5 cm high at work for at least five years; the 102 controls reported never wearing high heels at work. Median workplace exposure was 20 years, IQR 10 to 30. The study asked years of use and leisure-wear days in the preceding week but did not report hours per week. Blinded examiners assessed weight-bearing radiographs and foot scores. Trondelag Orthopaedic Workshop partly supported the study, and the paper states that there were no other sponsors.

02

Why this is classified as C (52)

A roughly 14-percentage-point midfoot-pain difference and substantial limitations of a single retrospective cross-sectional comparison give C with 52 points.

Counterpoint. The pain result was not null, and differences in selected pain locations and callosities may matter for preventive footwear choices.

Rejudgment record. Cross-check applied — The retrospective exposure-group and cross-sectional structure, 95 versus 102 participants, midfoot pain of 42% versus 28%, risk difference, relative risk, odds ratio, null radiographs, and the no-other-sponsors statement were applied

Scoring profile behind this grade
EndpointPPatient-reported treatment goal - the symptom is the goal
ReplicationR1Single confirmatory trial
IndependenceI1Mixed funding sources
Effect sizeE+Meets the clinically important threshold

The scoring table and the verdict agree (C).

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
Increased radiographic hallux-valgus angle or joint diseaseDHallux-valgus angle and radiographic joint disease did not differ significantly.
Increased foot painCA small association appeared at selected sites, including midfoot pain of 42% versus 28%.
Worse overall foot function scoreDTotal AOFAS and SEFAS scores did not differ significantly between groups.

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 1One-time retrospective comparison formed from prior workplace exposure102Partly funded by Trondelag Orthopaedic Workshop; the paper states there were no other sponsorsWeight-bearing radiographic deformity, AOFAS and SEFAS scores, and site-specific painMidfoot pain was 40/95 (42%) versus 29/102 (28%), P=.04; risk difference about 14 percentage points, relative risk about 1.50, odds ratio about 1.86. Radiographic and total-score differences were null.Decisive single observational study
§

Receipt — 1 References

All 1 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-08-05).

Borchgrevink GE, Viset AT, Witsø E, Schei B, Foss OA. Does the use of high-heeled shoes lead to fore-foot pathology? A controlled cohort study comprising 197 women. Foot Ankle Surg. 2016;22(4):239-243. PMID: 27810021. DOI: 10.1016/j.fas.2015.10.004.
checked
Draft and rewrite: Codex (AI) · Verification: Codex blind grading and adversarial audit · Final adjudication: Claude
Reviewed and approved: Chamgap Editorial Team · Approval date: 2026-08-05 · Corrections: none

Cite this verdict

Long-term high-heel use x midfoot pain Evidence Grade C card
[Chamgap] Long-term high-heel use x midfoot pain — Evidence Grade C·52. 1 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/joint-bone/long-term-high-heels-foot-deformity-pain/ · 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.