Since the early 1980s many studies showed a gap between available evidence and medical practice. They were designed to assess the real impact of randomized clinical trials on the practice of medicine. Their results substantiated a knowledge translation problem. However, they were qualitative findings, i.e. a gap exists or not, although the problem is quantitative (how large is the gap?) and has several components that should be documented according to the objective of the study. In this article, we explored the components and the various contexts in which the measure of the distance between practice and knowledge is considered. All these features should be taken into account for a more accurate and relevant assessment of the distance.