Salīdzināt metodes

	Vienkāršs vienpusēji akls dabisks eksperiments	Vienkāršs vienpusēji akls kontrolēts pētījums
Nozare	Eksperimentu plānošana	Eksperimentu plānošana
Saime	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Izcelsmes gads	Late 20th century (formalized practice)	1948 (formalized); single-blind variant established in mid-20th century clinical trial methodology
Autors	Conceptual synthesis of natural experiment tradition (Haavelmo, 1944; Campbell & Stanley, 1963) with single-blind methodology	Bradford Hill and colleagues (MRC streptomycin trial, 1948); blinding conventions codified in CONSORT guidelines
Tips	Quasi-experimental design with partial blinding	Experimental design — blinded randomized trial
Pirmavots	Dunning, T. (2012). Natural Experiments in the Social Sciences: A Design-Based Approach. Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 978-1107698000	Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., & CONSORT Group. (2010). CONSORT 2010 statement: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ, 340, c332.
Citi nosaukumi	single-masked natural experiment, blinded quasi-experiment, single-blind exogenous assignment study	single-masked RCT, single-blind RCT, single-blind trial, SB-RCT
Saistītās	2	5
Kopsavilkums	A single-blind natural experiment leverages an exogenous, researcher-uncontrolled event — such as a policy change, lottery, or natural disaster — to create treatment and comparison groups, while applying single-blind procedures so that either the participants or the outcome assessors (but not both) are unaware of group assignment. This design combines the causal leverage of natural variation with reduced measurement bias from blinding.	A single-blind randomized controlled trial (SB-RCT) is a rigorous experimental design in which participants are randomly assigned to treatment or control conditions while remaining unaware of which condition they have received. Investigators, outcome assessors, and data analysts are not blinded. By masking participants, the design eliminates placebo and nocebo response biases on the participant side, while preserving investigator flexibility to administer and monitor the intervention.