“The Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD) is a systematic, scientific effort to quantify the magnitude of all major diseases, risk factors and intermediate clinical outcomes in a highly standardized way, to allow for comparisons over time, across populations and between health problems.” (Murray, Nat Med 28(10):2019–2026, 2022) This chapter is a summary and comments for 1 – 7 chapters. The first chapter of this book outlines the objectives of the GBD study, its history, development of DALY and HALE, and the overall analytic strategy. DALY and HALE are central and key to generating standardized comparisons. However, there is not comparability between Daly and HALE, and other SMPH, such as QALY due to the different construction strategies. YLD is essentially a weighted prevalence of the disease, and not related to the disability status of the population. This content is mainly found in Chap. 2 . The GBD study completed the multiple rounds of assessment of the global burden of disease under a comprehensive and comparable analytical framework using systematic analytical strategies, including data pooling and adjustment, analytical modeling, and algorithmic innovations. This means that the GBD study has developed a set of standardized methodologies for estimating the burden of disease for populations in different regions, countries, ages, and genders across the globe. These contents are found in Chaps. 3 – 6 . Taking China as a case study, Chap. 7 demonstrates that the GBD study estimated the national and subnational disease burden based on a global perspective. It is conducive to a more objective evaluation of the health priority of populations and the promotion of health equity. It is true that there are still many deficiencies and limitation in GBD’s analytical methods, which have led to some misestimating for population health at the national and subnational levels, and have also triggered considerable controversy. These are normal academic debates, which are conducive to the further improvement of GBD study methodology. The authors of this book suggest a solution to this dilemma: deep involvement and independent validation at country level. That is, the local experts with understanding the GBD methodology compare the results of GBD study with local disease reports and discover the differences between the two. It helps to improve their capacity of public health and epidemiology, facilitates the comprehensive utilization of local data, and, more importantly, promotes policy action. The process is also benefit to refine the GBD methodology. This is also the original purpose of publishing this book.