We found differences between our new weights, which were based entirely on case-reported outcomes, and the corresponding GBD 2013 weights, which were based on a combination of panel-based and case-outcome studies. It could be argued that our new weights are not directly comparable with the GBD 2013 weights, due to distinctly different approaches to weight generation, although either set of weights could be used to derive population-based measures of injury burden. The GBD studies primarily relied on the responses of a public panel or panel of experts when faced with a standardized set of brief descriptors. Our new weights are entirely based on case-reported outcomes from cohort studies in high-income countries. The GBD studies, our study and other epidemiological studies designed to generate disability weights have generally not explicitly considered the extent to which factors such as socioeconomic status, access to high-quality care, environmental barriers or resilience, adaptation and the coping strategies of injured individuals can influence the lived experience of injury-related disability.