Mapping Research on Warm-Up in Athletes: A Scoping Review with Evidence Gap Map

Abstract

Warm-up is a central preparatory phase of training and competition, aimed at optimizing physiological and neuromuscular readiness for subsequent performance and reducing the risk of injury. However, the athlete warm-up literature spans diverse sports, populations, and intervention models, with substantial variability in protocol content, outcome selection, and reporting. No prior scoping review with an Evidence Gap Map (EGM) has comprehensively mapped this evidence across sports, warm-up modalities, and outcome domains. To map the landscape of warm-up evidence in athletes, identify the main intervention types and outcome domains investigated, and locate key evidence gaps related to methodology, population coverage, sport specificity, and real-world applicability. A scoping review with EGM was conducted in accordance with PRISMA–ScR guidance, with methodological considerations informed by the PRISMA 2020 statement. Searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science Core Collection for studies published up to 20th January 2026. Eligible studies examined warm-up practices in athletes across competitive sports and evaluated performance, injury-related, physiological, or neuromuscular outcomes. Data were synthesized descriptively and organized within an EGM according to sport, age subgroup, warm-up type, and reported outcomes. The search yielded 27,644 records, of which 964 studies published between 1972 and 2026 were included. Most studies examined acute, proxy-based performance outcomes, especially jump, sprint, agility/change-of-direction, and strength/power measures. Physiological and neuromuscular responses were also frequently assessed, whereas injury-related outcomes, competition-referent outcomes, and implementation-focused variables were comparatively scarce. The EGM identified recurring gaps in injury endpoints, underrepresented sports, incomplete reporting of dose variables, and limited ecological validity for feasibility, adherence, and real-world deployment. In the current warm-up evidence, the majority of the research studied warm-up as a strategy for acute performance readiness. In addition, studies on injury reduction remain limited compared to acute performance enhancement, reflecting a surveillance and reporting gap. Evidence for competition-referent transfer and real-world implementation also remains limited. Protocol Registration: OSF: https://osf.io/f3msz, DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/7H9ZV. Warm-up research in athletes is dominated by short-term, proxy-based performance outcomes, with the strongest support for acute performance readiness rather than for broader applied outcomes. Evidence for direct injury-related endpoints, competition-referent outcomes, and real-world implementation remains comparatively limited. However, this limitation of injury data reflects a surveillance and reporting gap within the literature rather than evidence against the efficacy of established warm-up protocols. Such findings must be interpreted separately from acute performance effects, as the benefits of warm-up routines as structured injury-prevention programs typically depend on repeated exposure, adherence, and long-term adaptation rather than a single session. The current literature is further limited by concentration on a narrow set of sports and by inconsistent reporting of warm-up type, duration, intensity, sequencing, and transition timing, reducing comparability and prescription-level guidance. Most studies report mean effects, with limited attention to inter-individual variability in warm-up responses; future research should, therefore, prioritize more individualized, ecologically valid, and practice-oriented designs. Warm-up research in athletes is dominated by short-term, proxy-based performance outcomes, with the strongest support for acute performance readiness rather than for broader applied outcomes. Evidence for direct injury-related endpoints, competition-referent outcomes, and real-world implementation remains comparatively limited. However, this limitation of injury data reflects a surveillance and reporting gap within the literature rather than evidence against the efficacy of established warm-up protocols. Such findings must be interpreted separately from acute performance effects, as the benefits of warm-up routines as structured injury-prevention programs typically depend on repeated exposure, adherence, and long-term adaptation rather than a single session. The current literature is further limited by concentration on a narrow set of sports and by inconsistent reporting of warm-up type, duration, intensity, sequencing, and transition timing, reducing comparability and prescription-level guidance. Most studies report mean effects, with limited attention to inter-individual variability in warm-up responses; future research should, therefore, prioritize more individualized, ecologically valid, and practice-oriented designs.