A Retrospective Comparative Analysis of Cutaneous Adverse Reactions in GLP-1 Agonist Therapies.

Daniel, Sophia et al.·Journal of drugs in dermatology : JDD·2025·
RPEP-106132025RETHINKTHC RESEARCH DATABASErethinkthc.com/research

Quick Facts

Study Type
Not classified
Evidence
Not graded
Sample
Not reported

What This Study Found

Key Numbers

How They Did This

Why This Research Matters

What This Study Doesn't Tell Us

Trust & Context

Original Title:
A Retrospective Comparative Analysis of Cutaneous Adverse Reactions in GLP-1 Agonist Therapies.
Published In:
Journal of drugs in dermatology : JDD, 24(4), 413-415 (2025)
Database ID:
RPEP-10613

Evidence Hierarchy

Meta-Analysis / Systematic Review
Randomized Controlled Trial
Cohort / Case-Control
Cross-Sectional / ObservationalSnapshot without intervening
This study
Case Report / Animal Study
What do these levels mean? →

Read More on RethinkPeptides

Related articles coming soon.

Cite This Study

RPEP-10613·https://rethinkpeptides.com/research/RPEP-10613

APA

Daniel, Sophia; Waggett, Stephanie; Lyles, Elliott; Sagut, Pelin; Shamaei Zadeh, Parisa; Marcelletti, Anthony; Stegura, Carol; Wine Lee, Lara. (2025). A Retrospective Comparative Analysis of Cutaneous Adverse Reactions in GLP-1 Agonist Therapies.. Journal of drugs in dermatology : JDD, 24(4), 413-415. https://doi.org/10.36849/JDD.8605

MLA

Daniel, Sophia, et al. "A Retrospective Comparative Analysis of Cutaneous Adverse Reactions in GLP-1 Agonist Therapies.." Journal of drugs in dermatology : JDD, 2025. https://doi.org/10.36849/JDD.8605

RethinkPeptides

RethinkPeptides Research Database. "A Retrospective Comparative Analysis of Cutaneous Adverse Re..." RPEP-10613. Retrieved from https://rethinkpeptides.com/research/daniel-2025-a-retrospective-comparative-analysis

Access the Original Study

Study data sourced from PubMed, a service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

This study breakdown was produced by the RethinkPeptides research team. We analyze and report published research findings without making health recommendations. All interpretations are based solely on the published abstract and study data.