OpenEvidence adds ACR fact sheets to a clinical AI workflow

On November 6, 2026, OpenEvidence and the American College of Rheumatology announced a collaboration to make English- and Spanish-language patient fact sheets available inside OpenEvidence’s medical AI platform. The organizations intend the resources for clinicians caring for people with rheumatic conditions. They made the announcement at ACR Convergence 2026.

ACR says it represents more than 10,600 rheumatology professionals worldwide. OpenEvidence and ACR say the collaboration serves rheumatologists as well as primary care physicians and other specialists who manage rheumatic conditions. OpenEvidence says the aim is to help those clinicians share information with patients and caregivers at the point of care.

ACR says care for rheumatic diseases often extends beyond rheumatology practices. More than 53 million U.S. adults have been diagnosed with arthritis, according to ACR, and many rheumatic diseases are chronic and complex. ACR says patients and caregivers often manage those conditions for years, which gives the partnership a clear practical target: consistent information before, during and after visits.

What changes inside the clinical workflow?

Under the collaboration, the fact sheets surface automatically when clinically relevant. OpenEvidence said they appear alongside peer-reviewed medical literature, with a direct link back to the original ACR resource. The arrangement puts patient-oriented explanations in the same workflow as clinical evidence while preserving access to the underlying material.

Clinicians can use the sheets to reinforce conversations with patients and caregivers about a diagnosis or treatment plan. ACR says the collection also identifies topics patients can discuss with healthcare providers as they prepare questions. In practice, the difference is delivery: clinicians can bring a basic explanation into the appointment without sending patients elsewhere first.

OpenEvidence and ACR described the integration as a way to make information more consistent across practice settings. For OpenEvidence, it puts patient-facing explanations beside clinical literature. For ACR, it extends educational resources to the broader mix of clinicians involved in rheumatology care.

For clinicians, the change is a delivery change: relevant patient guidance appears where they already review medical evidence.

What information will patients and caregivers get?

The collection spans disease, condition and treatment information. OpenEvidence listed gout and psoriatic arthritis among the included conditions, along with resources on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and biologic medications. ACR’s fact sheets use accessible language to explain causes, common signs and symptoms, diagnosis and treatment.

The gout and psoriatic arthritis pages go further. ACR says its treatment pages describe how common medications and therapies work, along with common dosages, safety tips, possible side effects and risks. The patient sheets also identify subjects to discuss with providers while preparing questions about a diagnosis or treatment plan.

Language access is part of the collection. ACR provides Spanish versions for most treatment pages, and its English pages link to their Spanish counterparts. Both the gout and psoriatic arthritis sheets also offer print-or-save-as-PDF options and links to Spanish versions.

ACR says the resources are designed to help patients understand a diagnosis, follow a treatment plan and know what to ask at the next appointment. In practice, the collection gives clinicians plain-language material that connects diagnoses and treatments with questions patients can take home.

How does ACR maintain the guidance?

OpenEvidence’s announcement uses the gout and psoriatic arthritis sheets to show how ACR maintains the material. Both carry February 2025 update credits: Pankti Reid, MD, MPH, for gout, and Kiren Sahni, MD, for psoriatic arthritis. ACR says its communications and marketing committee reviewed each page.

ACR labels the disease and treatment information as “general education only.” The boundary is explicit: ACR directs individuals to qualified healthcare professionals for advice, diagnosis and treatment of their own conditions.

The practical takeaway is simple: each highlighted page has a named medical update credit, committee review and a clear limit on patient use.

Why is the partnership reaching beyond rheumatology?

“Patients and caregivers need information they can understand, trust, and return to after an appointment,” said ACR president William Harvey, MD, MSc, FACR. ACR says the collaboration aims to help patients feel better informed and more prepared to participate in their care.

ACR says clear, consistent materials are intended to help patients understand a diagnosis, follow a treatment plan and know what to ask at the next appointment. ACR also says primary care physicians and other specialists treat many people with rheumatic conditions, so the resources are not meant only for rheumatologists.

Vishal Patel, MD, a rheumatologist and OpenEvidence’s vice president of clinical partnerships and AI education, said much of how patients fare depends on how well they understand their condition and treatment between visits. He said the integration lets clinicians in any practice setting share the information in English or Spanish at the point of care.

The partnership’s practical test is to carry specialist guidance beyond the rheumatology office and make it useful in primary care and between visits.

What will determine whether the integration works?

OpenEvidence and ACR frame the practical test clearly: whether relevance-based delivery makes consistent information easier to share during appointments and easier for patients and caregivers to use afterward. For OpenEvidence, the collaboration puts patient-facing explanations beside peer-reviewed literature, with direct access to ACR’s original resources. For ACR, it extends educational resources beyond rheumatology practices.

The announcement does not provide adoption numbers, a rollout schedule or results from patient and clinician testing. It also does not claim that the integration has changed how patients follow treatment plans or participate in care. Those measures would matter because both organizations frame better understanding and participation as the goal.

That leaves one unresolved issue for both organizations: whether automatic, clinically relevant delivery makes the right information easier to find, share and use after a visit. If it does, the collaboration could make patient education a more consistent part of rheumatic care.

The announcement sets that outcome as the test, but it provides no adoption figures or user results yet. The next test is whether automatic delivery makes the information easier to share during care and easier to use afterward.