Rally for Normative Demands and Solidarity of Workers

This research is initiated by an interesting fact that there are still many labor strikes and rallies in Indonesia. The purpose of this study is to determine: the influence of normative demands and solidarity together on job dissatisfaction of workers. This research is intended as explanatory research. Sampling method used in this research is accidental sampling. The sample consists of 100 workers/laborers who joined rallies on May 1, 2014. The results show on the indicator the amount of City Minimum Wage Rates in normative demands variable, respondents believe the amount of wages earned are still not in accordance with the provisions of the minimum wage set by the government. Participation of workers in the fight for economic security must be done in various ways including demonstrations, based on solidarity between workers in order to put pressure on policy makers with regard to labor issues. In conclusion, good normative demands in accordance with the provisions of the agreement and the strong solidarity between workers will reduce dissatisfaction. Suggestions are made on normative demands variable; review should be made on the amount of the city minimum wage rates; leave entitlements, workers social security and dismissal policies should be in compliance with the current government policy

TNF inhibitor combined with methotrexate versus single DMARD (methotrexate): The effect of TNF inhibitor was highly significant (Z = 10.84).

<p>The 13 TNF inhibitor studies showed no significant heterogeneity (I² = 42%, p = 0.06). The borderline heterogeneity was due to two golimumab studies (GoBefore, GoForward) <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0106408#pone.0106408-Emery2" target="_blank">[46]</a>. The exclusion of these, did, however, not change the overall result (−0.33 SMD (CI: −0.39, −0.27)).</p

CD20 inhibitor treatment combined with single DMARD versus single DMARD: The effect of CD20 inhibitor treatment was highly significant (Z = 7.87).

<p>The 5 CD20 inhibitor studies showed no heterogeneity (I² = 0).</p

Star shaped network showing the 6 different combination treatments anchored on single treatment as the common comparator.

<p>The loops (grey lines) with corresponding numbers (1, 2, 3) show the subgroups, which were directly compared in addition to being indirectly compared. N indicates the number of patients in the groups.</p

Study Characteristics and Risk of Bias Factors.

<p>*Percentage of Annual Radiographic Progression Rate</p><p>Study Characteristics and Risk of Bias Factors.</p

Analyses of bias factors and confounders, which differed significantly across treatment groups.

<p>Only 1 bias factor (TNFi studies: Complete outcome versus incomplete outcome, line 9) had a significant influence on the outcome. Abbreviations: SMD: Standardized mean difference. WMD: Weighted mean difference (SMD1-SMD2); DM: DMARD; GC: Glucocorticoid; DN: DMARD naive; DIA: DMARD inadequate responder; D: double; T: Triple; Sp: Sponsoring; DB: double-blind; CO: Complete outcome; IO: Incomplete outcome; Dur: Disease duration at baseline; PARPR: Percentage of annual radiographic progression rate; L: low; H: High.</p

Indirect comparisons of different combination treatments.

<p>There is a trend towards triple treatment being superior to abatacept and TNFi. All other differences between the combination treatments are non-significant. Abbreviations: SMD: Standardized mean difference. WMD: Weighted mean difference (SMD1-SMD2).</p

Abatacept combined with methotrexate versus single DMARD (methotrexate): The effect of abatacept was significant (Z = 3.08).

<p>The 2 abatacept studies showed no heterogeneity (I² = 0).</p

Observed Frequencies of bias factors for treatment groups.

<p>Observed Frequencies of bias factors for treatment groups.</p

Other possible confounders across treatment groups.

<p>Other possible confounders across treatment groups.</p