# Retrospective Analysis of Functional Pain among Professional Climbers
## 3 Results  
### Functional Pain Characteristics of the Climbers' and Control Groups  
The logistic regression analysis considered the functional pain characteristics depending on the sports activity and anatomical body part. The results showed that the climbers were three times more likely to experience functional pain in the GHJ (gleno-humeral joint) (AUC: 0.635) and had 2.86 times higher odds of developing functional pain in the elbow (AUC: 0.625) and 7.74 times higher odds for functional pain occurrence in the fingers (AUC: 0.733). Moreover, the results revealed that the climbers suffered less often from functional back pain than the control group. The analysis of other regions showed no significant meaning. Detailed data are shown in Table 2. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \begin{tabular}{c} **Anatomical** \\ **Location of** \\ **Functional Pain** \\ \end{tabular} & **Predictors** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Odds** \\ **Ratio** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Std.** \\ **Error** \\ \end{tabular} & **CI** & \begin{tabular}{c} **\(p\)** \\ **(Adjusted)** \\ \end{tabular} & **AUC** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{GHJ} & \begin{tabular}{c} (Intercept) \\ \end{tabular} & 0.48 & 0.17 & 0.35–0.67 & \textless{}0.001 * & - \\ \cline{2-6}  & \begin{tabular}{c} (Timbing \\ (yes = 1) \\ \end{tabular} & 3.06 & 0.23 & 1.96–4.77 & \textless{}0.001 * & 0.635 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Elbow} & \begin{tabular}{c} (Intercept) \\ (yes = 1) \\ \end{tabular} & 0.26 & 0.20 & 0.18–0.38 & \textless{}0.001 * & - \\ \cline{2-6}  & \begin{tabular}{c} (Timbing \\ (yes = 1) \\ \end{tabular} & 2.86 & 0.25 & 1.77–4.63 & \textless{}0.001 * & 0.625 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Fingers} & \begin{tabular}{c} (Intercept) \\ (yes = 1) \\ \end{tabular} & 0.30 & 0.19 & 0.21–0.43 & \textless{}0.001 * & - \\ \cline{2-6}  & \begin{tabular}{c} (Timbing \\ (yes = 1) \\ \end{tabular} & 7.74 & 0.25 & 4.76–12.56 & \textless{}0.001 * & 0.733 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{C} & \begin{tabular}{c} (Intercept) \\ (yes = 1) \\ \end{tabular} & 1.76 & 0.16 & 1.27–2.43 & \textless{}0.001 * & - \\ \cline{2-6}  & \begin{tabular}{c} (Timbing \\ (yes = 1) \\ \end{tabular} & 0.28 & 0.23 & 0.18–0.43 & \textless{}0.001 * & 0.345 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Th} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} (Intercept) \\ (yes = 1) \\ \end{tabular} & 1.46 & 0.16 & 1.07–2.00 & 0.019 * & - \\ \cline{2-6}  &
\begin{tabular}{c} (Timbing \\ (yes = 1) \\ \end{tabular} & 0.35 & 0.22 & 0.23–0.54 & \textless{}0.001 * & 0.372 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Results of the logistic regression model that was used to predict the differences between the climbers and non-climbers in the anatomical location of functional pain. Additionally, the multiple logistic regression results revealed that the female climbers had more than twice lower odds of developing functional pain in the fingers compared to the male climbers (AUC: 0.385). The female climbers were more than three times as likely to develop pain in the GHJ compared to the male climbers (AUC: 0.638). Furthermore, the odds for pain prevalence in the thoracic (AUC: 0.580) and lumbosacral spine (AUC: 0.578) were nearly twice as high in the female climbers than in the male climbers (Table 3). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Anatomical** & & & & & & \\
**Location of** & **Predictors** & **Odds Ratio** & **Std. Error** & **CI** & **\(p\) (Adjusted)** & **AUC** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{L-S} & (Intercept) & 2.08 & 0.17 & 1.49–2.89 & \textless{}0.001 * & - \\ \cline{2-7}  & Climbing & (yes = 1) & 0.31 & 0.23 & 0.20–0.49 & \textless{}0.001 * & 0.360 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Head} & (Intercept) & 4.33 & 0.20 & 2.91–6.45 & \textless{}0.001 * & - \\ \cline{2-7}  & Climbing & (yes = 1) & 0.07 & 0.27 & 0.04–0.11 & \textless{}0.001 * & 0.207 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* \(p<0.05\); GHJ—glenohumeral joint, C—cerical spine, Th—thoracic spine, L.S—lumbosacral spine.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: _Cont._