So sánh phương pháp

	Thí nghiệm tự nhiên	Thử nghiệm đối chứng ngẫu nhiên mù đơn
Lĩnh vực	Thiết kế thí nghiệm	Thiết kế thí nghiệm
Họ	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Năm ra đời	1990s (formal methodological articulation); earlier in epidemiology (John Snow, 1854)	1948 (formalized); single-blind variant established in mid-20th century clinical trial methodology
Người khởi xướng	Varied; systematized in econometrics and political science (e.g., Meyer 1995; Angrist & Krueger 1991)	Bradford Hill and colleagues (MRC streptomycin trial, 1948); blinding conventions codified in CONSORT guidelines
Loại	Quasi-experimental research design	Experimental design — blinded randomized trial
Công trình gốc	Meyer, B. D. (1995). Natural and quasi-experiments in economics. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 13(2), 151–161.	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.
Tên gọi khác	natural quasi-experiment, naturally occurring experiment, exogenous shock design, as-if randomization	single-masked RCT, single-blind RCT, single-blind trial, SB-RCT
Liên quan	3	5
Tóm tắt	A natural experiment exploits a real-world event, policy, or circumstance that assigns individuals to treatment and control conditions in a way that is plausibly random — or at least exogenous to the outcome of interest. Because the researcher does not control assignment, it occupies a middle ground between a true randomized controlled trial and purely observational research, offering stronger causal leverage than conventional observational designs when the as-if randomization assumption holds.	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.