Objective. This study aimed to summarize the accuracy of the different methods for detecting trigger asynchrony at the bedside in mechanically ventilated patients. Method. A systematic review was conducted from 1990 to 2020 in PubMed, Lilacs, Scopus, and ScienceDirect databases. The reference list of the identified studies, reviews, and meta-analyses was also manually searched for relevant studies. The reference standards were esophageal pressure catheter and/or electrical activity of the diaphragm. Studies were assessed following the QUADAS-2 recommendations, while the review was prepared according to the PRISMA criteria. Results. One thousand one hundred and eleven studies were selected, and four were eligible for analysis. Esophageal pressure was the predominant reference standard, while visual inspection and algorithms/software comprised index tests. The trigger asynchrony, ineffective expiratory effort, double triggering, and reverse triggering were analyzed. Sensitivity and specificity ranged from 65.2% to 99% and 80% to 100%, respectively. Positive predictive values reached 80.3 to 100%, while the negative predictive values reached 92 to 100%. Accuracy could not be calculated for most studies. Conclusion. Algorithms/software validated directly or indirectly using reference standards present high sensitivity and specificity, with a diagnostic power similar to visual inspection of experts.