A major strength of our analysis was the large sample size – from multiple studies and health jurisdictions – which allowed weights to be estimated, for most commonly used injury classifications, for both hospital admissions and cases who were only treated in emergency departments. However, our analysis did have several limitations. The accuracy of the coding of injury diagnoses cannot be guaranteed, especially for cases attending emergency departments – whose injuries may not have been be recorded by a trained coder. Disability weights for some categories of injury were based on relatively small numbers of cases. We therefore provided 95% confidence intervals to indicate the precision of each weight estimate. Inconsistencies and errors in documentation from the GBD 2013 study11 sometimes made it difficult to map ICD-10 codes to the relevant GBD 2013 injury group. The six data sets we employed differed in terms of follow-up rates and availability of EQ-5D data for each time point post-injury. Responder bias may have affected the British and Dutch data sets, which showed higher losses to follow-up than the other data sets. For some data sets, there was no collection of EQ-5D scores and we needed to estimate such scores from the responses to questions in the 12-item Short Form Health Survey.