Research AppraisalSystematic Review

Clinical manifestations of bed bug bites: A systematic review of case reports

PloS onePorras-Villamil, Julian Felipe, DeVries, Zachary CDOI

Clinical Snapshot

65CEBM
Evidence: ModerateSystematic Review

PICO Framework

P — PopulationPatients with documented bed bug bites (Cimex lectularius and C. hemipterus)
I — InterventionBed bug bite exposure
C — ComparatorNot applicable (descriptive systematic review)
O — OutcomesDermatological manifestations, anatomical distribution, systemic symptoms, psychological symptoms

Bottom Line

This systematic review of 84 bed bug bite cases provides valuable clinical characterisation for practitioners. Key findings include predominant involvement of exposed extremities (arms 71.4%, legs 59.5%), with C. lectularius causing 90.5% of cases. While dermatological patterns vary and can mimic other arthropod bites, psychological symptoms occurred in only 9.5% of cases, and systemic complications were rare, typically associated with severe infestations in vulnerable patients. The evidence, while limited by case report methodology, offers practical guidance for clinical recognition and differential diagnosis. Australian clinicians should be aware of these patterns given increasing urban bed bug reports, though the variable presentation necessitates careful clinical assessment and consideration of patient history and environmental factors.

Evidence: Moderate

Key Findings

  • P Value: p = 0.332 for age difference between sexes

  • Effect Size: Not applicable (descriptive study)

  • Primary Outcome: Anatomical distribution of bed bug bites with arms affected in 71.4% and legs in 59.5% of cases

  • Nnt Or Sensitivity: C. lectularius responsible for 90.5% of cases vs C. hemipterus 9.5%

  • Confidence Interval: Not reported

Clinical Application

High feasibility for clinical recognition and differential diagnosis in primary care and dermatology settings Relevant for Australian clinicians given increasing bed bug reports in urban areas; supports clinical recognition for appropriate management and public health notification Patients presenting with suspected arthropod bites, particularly in areas with known bed bug infestations

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Clinical characterization of bed bug (Cimex spp.) bite manifestations remains limited. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review synthesizes case reports to describe dermatological, systemic, and psychological outcomes of bed bug bites. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Following PRISMA guidelines, multiple databases, including Pubmed and Scopus, were searched using terms such as "bed bug," "Cimex lectularius," "Cimex hemipterus," "case report," and "case series." Extracted data included demographics, species, lesion type, anatomical distribution, and clinical manifestations. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were included: 76 with C. lectularius (90.5%) and, 8 with C. hemipterus (9.5%). Sex distribution was balanced (47.6% females, 52.4% males), and mean ages were similar (females 37.5 ± 22.1, males 42.3 ± 21.27 years; p = 0.332). Extremities were commonly affected, arms were reported in 71.4% of cases, legs in 59.5% and trunk in 34.5%. Psychological symptoms were registered in a handful of case reports (Anxiety 9.5%, Stress 9.5%, Hopelessness 9.5%). Systemic symptoms, generally associated with anemia, were reported in cases related to severe infestations in neglected patients. Some differences in systemic and local signs and symptoms were detected depending on age group. CONCLUSIONS: Bed bug bites predominantly affect exposed extremities, although with variable dermatologic patterns that can be confused with other arthropod bites. Psychological manifestations were reported in a small subset of cases, while systemic complications were rare.

References

  1. 1.Porras-Villamil, J. F., & DeVries, Z. C. (2026). Clinical manifestations of bed bug bites: A systematic review of case reports. PLoS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341398
Share:XLinkedIn

This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service