ReviewSports medicine - open2026
Mapping Research on Warm-Up in Athletes: A Scoping Review with Evidence Gap Map.
Review in Sports medicine - open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWarm-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.
objectivesTo 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.
methodsA 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.
resultsThe 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.
conclusionsIn 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.