One argument for the preferential use of panel-based weights is the potential for individuals with chronic conditions to adapt and underestimate disease burden.26 In general, however, our new weights – like the case-based Integration of European Injury Statistics weights – were substantially higher than the largely panel-based GBD 2013 weights. This difference was especially marked for the more common categories of injury such as fractures and dislocations. In a previous study, estimates of injury burden based on data collected from the general public were generally found to be lower than those estimated from the experiences of the injured, particularly for categories of injury that are generally perceived to be less severe, such as sprains and fractures.6 However, those living with spinal cord injury reported less disability than that predicted by the general public.6 The general public’s overestimation of the burden of disability resulting from some severe injuries may reflect the limitations of the vignette to convey the variability in disability within injuries adequately. This could explain why our new weights for severe traumatic brain injury and spinal cord lesion at neck level are substantially lower than the corresponding GBD 2013 weights. A perceived benefit of the case-based approach is the capacity to evaluate variation in disability within an injury group.