The greater geographical variation of communicable disorders was related to their overwhelming predominance in countries at low levels of socio-demographic development and emphasised the need for better prevention (including vaccination and sanitation measures), as well as better case management in these regions. We noted significant sex differences in the burden of many neurological disorders analysed (higher prevalence of tetanus, stroke, Parkinson’s disease, and motor neuron disease, but lower prevalence of multiple sclerosis and various types of headaches in males). The greater prevalence of stroke,59 Parkinson’s disease,24 epilepsy,60 and motor neuron disease61 in males has also been reported by other studies. A greater prevalence in females has been reported elsewhere for migraine62 and multiple sclerosis.50 Our finding of 22% higher age-standardised prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias in women is in accordance with a finding from a meta-analysis of consistently higher estimates among 160 studies, although it was reported not to be significant.48 The higher age-standardised rate might be partly due to having a top age category of 80 years and older. As dementia is so highly prevalent at oldest ages, greater age detail in estimation of dementia prevalence might reduce the observed sex difference.Preventive interventions that are specific for sex, age, and population to reduce the burden from these disorders.Although ours was the most up-to-date overview of the global burden of major neurological disorders, this study was not free from some limitations in addition to overall GBD limitations.3,4 First, we assumed that the excess mortality in Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias implied by prevalence and mortality rates in countries that were most willing to code deaths to dementia in their vital registrations would apply to all other countries and periods. Although we realised that excess mortality was unlikely to be generalisable over location and time, we chose to make this assumption to address the much larger change we observed in deaths certified as Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias between countries and over time than seen in prevalence or incidence studies. Second, estimates of cause-specific death rates in most low-income and middle-income countries rely on verbal autopsy data rather than physician-certified death records. Verbal autopsy instruments can identify deaths due to some neurological disorders, including stroke, meningitis, tetanus, and epilepsy, but are unable to capture other neurological disorders.67 Third, there are also many gaps in data availability by world region, and many low-income and middle-income regions do not have any epidemiological data. Epilepsy is the only neurological disorder with data sources for all 21 GBD regions. Fourth, heterogeneity in study methods and case definitions complicates the non-fatal estimation. Although we endeavoured to adjust for such methodological differences, this relied on generalising adjustment factors from few studies. Fifth, some categories of neurological disease were not included in this analysis because of an inability to aggregate cause-level and sequela-level data. For this reason, we were unable to include secondary epilepsy, the long-term neurological consequences of neonatal disorders, or traumatic brain injury and spinal cord injury, which are estimated in GBD as sequelae of injuries such as falls or road injuries. Adding currently missed neurological disorders would increase the health significance of the neurological disorders for public health systems and should be possible in a future GBD iteration. Sixth, sparse data on the severity of these neurological diseases did not allow us to differentiate severity by location or over time, with the exception of epilepsy (appendix pp 5–113). Relying on few studies, often from high-income countries only, meant we were unable to quantify any treatment effects on severity. In conclusion, we have shown that neurological disorders are a large cause of disability and death worldwide. Globally, the burden of neurological disorders has increased substantially over the past 25 years because of population ageing, despite substantial decreases in mortality rates from stroke and communicable neurological disorders. Because low-income and middle-income countries still have a long way to go through thedemographic transition of reductions in child mortality and population ageing, the number of patients who will need neurological care will continue to grow in the coming decades. It is important that policy makers and health-care providers are aware of these past trends to be able to provide adequate services for the growing numbers of patients with neurological disorders. In September 2017, the Child Neurology Society (CNS) convened a special task force to review the practice of child neurology in the United States. This was deemed a necessity by our membership, as our colleagues expressed discouragement and burnout by the increase in workload without additional resources; reliance on work relative value units (wRVUs) as the sole basis of compensation; a push by administrators for providers to see more patients with less allotted time; and lack of administrative, educational, and research support. The CNS Task Force designed and distributed a survey to multiple academic divisions of various sizes, as well as to private practices. Our findings were strikingly similar across different practices, demonstrating high workloads, lack of resources, poor electronic medical record support, and high provider symptoms of fatigue and burnout. From the results, the CNS Task Force has concluded that wRVUs cannot be the sole basis of compensation for child neurology.