“…Concisely, a total of 716 studies were identified in the initial database search; 543 articles were excluded because they were not relevant to our study’s objective, according to our screening process outlined in Figure 1 . Among the 173 potentially relevant studies, 28 RCTs matched the inclusion criteria for the current meta-analysis [ 15 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 ]. There were 146 studies further excluded: 106 studies were not RCTs, 19 studies did not use ASCT, 6 studies were non-human trials, 3 studies did not include lower extremity wounds, 4 studies used control groups that did not receive standard treatment with or without sham injections, and 8 studies were not retrievable full-length articles.…”