Neurologic Evaluation of Premature Infants at Term Equivalent Age: Too Early or Too Late? A Scoping Review

Background and Objectives: Early identification and referral for intervention of former premature infants at risk of neurodevelopmental impairment is considered a standard of care. The main purpose of this review was to assess the optimal timing of the first visit in a neurodevelopmental follow-up programme in order to identify at-risk infants in a timely and reliable manner. Materials and Methods: We considered three possible moments for the first evaluation: before 37 weeks postmenstrual age, at Term Equivalent Age (TEA, also known as 40 weeks postmenstrual age) and at 3–5 months corrected age (CA). A structured scoping review, informed by PRISMA-ScR principles, was performed. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus from database inception through March 2026, combined with a Wohlin-type snowballing strategy. Two assessment techniques were evaluated: the Amiel–Tison neurological examination of the newborn and infant, and the General Movements Assessment (GMA). We collected data on sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values at each of the three moments, and reviewed whether early intervention was associated with improved prognosis. Results: Intervention initiated before 12 months of age was associated with improved cognitive and motor outcomes in infancy compared with standard care; an additional benefit was observed when intervention started before discharge, particularly for cognitive outcomes in infancy. Both examinations showed very good specificity and negative predictive value at all three evaluation moments, consistent with their shared optimality concept. Sensitivity and specificity increased with the infant’s age. At each moment, the examinations identified (i) a high-risk group clearly requiring early intervention, (ii) a “grey zone” with uncertain evolution requiring closer surveillance, and (iii) a normal group with a very low risk of adverse outcomes. Combining two examination techniques at the same visit consistently improved discriminative and predictive performance. Conclusions: Evaluation at TEA alone may be too early because some abnormal findings normalize by 3 months CA, yet also too late for the most severely affected infants, who may manifest abnormal signs before term. We propose a stratified approach, with repeated evaluations using both the Amiel–Tison examination and GMA at 35–37 weeks postmenstrual age, at TEA, and at 3–5 months CA, in order to progressively identify infants at risk and refer them to appropriate early intervention. This proposal requires validation through prospective, well-designed research.