Coral species from another ocean may be the only way to save Caribbean reefs.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Introduced species will not save Caribbean coral reefs.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
   Article
2. Reply to Ritson-Williams et al. and Loya and van Woesik: Coral replacement research is vital due to uncertainty and unprecedented stress.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
   Article
3. Ecological replacement versus process-based recovery of Caribbean reefs.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Erratum issued
  Correction for Camacho et al., Coral species from another ocean may be the only way to save Caribbean reefs.2026

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.