IntroductionRecently, many sectors have seen disruptive changes due to the rapid progress in information and communication technology (ICT). The aim of this systematic literature review was to develop a first understanding of what is known about new ICTs in rheumatology and their disruptive potential.MethodsPubMed, LIVIVO, and EBSCO Discovery Service (EDS) databases were searched for relevant literature. Use of new ICTs was identified, categorized, and disruptive potential was discussed. Articles from 2008 to 2021 in German and English were considered.ResultsA total of 3539 articles were identified. After application of inclusion/exclusion criteria, 55 articles were included in the analyses. The majority of articles (48) used a non-experimental design or detailed expert opinion. The new ICTs mentioned in these articles could be allocated to four main categories: technologies that prepare for the development of new knowledge by data collection (n= 32); technologies that develop new knowledge by evaluation of data (e.g., by inventing better treatment;n= 11); technologies that improve communication of existing knowledge (n= 32); and technologies that improve the care process (n= 29). Further assessment classified the ICTs into different functional subcategories. Based on these categories it is possible to estimate the disruptive potential of new ICTs.ConclusionICTs are becoming increasingly important in rheumatology and may impact patients’ lives and professional conduct. The properties and disruptive potential of technologies identified in the articles differ widely. When looking into ICTs, doctors have focused on new diagnostic and therapeutic procedures but rarely on their disruptive potential. We recommend putting more effort into investigation of whether ICTs change the way rheumatology is performed and who is in control of it. Especially technologies that potentially replace physicians with machines, take control over the definition of quality in medicine, and/or create proprietary knowledge that is not accessible for doctors need more research.Supplementary InformationThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00393-022-01222-4) includes Table S1.