Recently there has been a couple of meta-analyses investigating heterogeneous treatment effects by analyzing the ratio of the outcome variances in the treatment and control group. The argument made in these articles is that if individuals differ in their response, then observed variances in the treatment and control group in RCTs should differ. In this post I explore this argument and provide a counterargument.
Non-randomized comparisons are common in RCTs. In this post I show some examples of confounding and collider bias, using treatment adherence as an example. I present a small simulation study that show that common regression models used in clinical psychology, makes little sense, and that Bayesian instrumental variable regression can be easily fit using the R package brms.