Extrauterine growth restriction (EUGR) has been used in the literature and clinical practice to describe inadequate growth in preterm infants. Significant variability is seen in the criteria for EUGR, with no standard definition reached to date. Moreover, no consensus on the optimal timing for assessment or the ideal growth monitoring tool has been achieved, and an ongoing debate persists on the appropriate terminology to express poor postnatal growth. To ensure an adequate understanding of growth and early intervention in preterm infants at higher risk, it is critical to relate the diagnostic criteria of EUGR to the ability to predict adverse outcomes, such as neurodevelopmental outcomes. This narrative review was conducted to present evidence that evaluates neurodevelopmental outcomes in preterm infants with EUGR, comparing separately the different definitions of this concept by weight (cross-sectional, longitudinal and "true" EUGR). In this article, we highlight the challenges of comparing various published studies on the subject, even when subclassifying by the definition of EUGR, due to the significant variability on the criteria used for each definition and for the evaluation of neurodevelopmental outcomes in different papers. This heterogeneity compromises the obtention of a single firm conclusion on the relation between different definitions of EUGR and adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes.
Keywords: extrauterine growth restriction; neurodevelopment; prematurity.